[Part 03]

[Benton Bradberry’s 2012 book, “The Myth of German Villainy” is a superb, must-read, revisionist look at how the German people have been systematically, relentlessly and most importantly, unjustly vilified as the arch criminal of the 20th century. Bradberry sets out, cooly and calmly as befits a former US-Navy officer and pilot, to show why and how the German people have been falsely accused of massive crimes and that their chief accuser and tormenter, organized jewry is in fact the real party guilty of monstrous crimes against Germans and the rest of the world.

In Part 03, organized jewry’s key role in prolonging and turning the war into a global conflict by getting America to declare war on Germany is described. Organized jewry allow the British to turn down peace offers from Germany when they promise to get the US involved provided they receive a British promise (the Balfour Declaration) of an eventual Jewish homeland in Palestine. Prominent American jews instruct their puppet, President Woodrow Wilson to achieve this goal, with Congress declaring war on April 6, 1917.

At the Paris Peace Conference the dominating jewish influence, both official and behind the scenes, is detailed, with organized organized jewry achieving its three principle aims: the creation of the League of Nations as the first step toward world government; the recognition of Jewish “minority rights” in Eastern Europe; and the creation of a British Mandate in Arab Palestine.

Lastly, the history of the thorough jewish infiltration of British aristocracy through marriage, usually of jewesses with landed gentry in financial difficulties, is described — KATANA.]

NOTE: The author has very generously given me permission to reproduce the material here — KATANA.

The Myth of

German Villainy

by

Benton L. Bradberry

Contents

Preface

Chapter 1 – The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Germany’s positive image changes overnight

Chapter 2 – Aftermath of the War in Germany

The Versailles Treaty

Effect of the Treaty on the German Economy

Was the War Guilt Clause Fair?

Did Germany Really Start the War?

Chapter 3 – The Jewish Factor in the War

Jews at the Paris Peace Conference

Jews in Britain

Chapter 4 – The Russian Revolution of 1917

Bolsheviks Take Control

Jews and the Russian Revolution

Origin of East European Jews

Reason for the Russian Pogroms Against the Jews

Jews leave Russia for America

Financing the 1917 Revolution

Jews in the Government of Bolshevik Russia

Chapter 5 – The Red Terror

Creation of the Gulag

Bolsheviks kill the Czar

Jews as a Hostile Elite

The Ukrainian Famine (Holodomor)

Chapter 6 – The Bolshevik Revolution Spreads throughout Europe

Jews in the Hungarian Revolution

Miklos Horthy saves Hungary

Jews in the German Revolution

The Sparticist Uprising in Berlin

Jewish Bolsheviks Attempt to Take Italy

Jewish Bolsheviks Attempt to Take Spain — The Spanish Civil War

Czechoslovakia in Danger of Communist Takeover

The Comintern’s aim? World domination!

Chapter 7 – The Nation of Israel

History of the Expulsion of Jews

Chapter 8 – Jews in Weimar Germany

Jews Undermine German Culture

Chapter 9 – Hitler & National Socialists Rise to Power

The 25 Points of the National Socialist Party

Chapter 10 – National Socialism vs. Communism

National Socialism

Jews Plan Marxist Utopia

Chapter 11 – Jews Declare War on Nazi Germany

Text of Untermeyer’s Speech in New York

The Jewish Persecution Myth

Effect of boycott on the German economy

Jewish exaggerations are contradicted by many

Chapter 12 – The Nazis and the Zionists actually work together for Jewish Emigration out of Germany

Chapter 3

The Jewish Factor in the War

On December 12, 1916, two and a half years into the war, Germany made a peace offer to the Allies to end the war on a status quo ante basis. That is, no one wins and no one loses, and no one pays reparations; everyone just stops fighting and goes back home. Germany had never wanted the war in the first place. By that time in the course of the war, Germany seemed on the verge of victory. Germany’s submarine force had effectively stopped the supply convoys coming from America to Britain, creating critical shortages of all war materiel in Britain. France had already lost 600,000 men in the battles of Verdun and the Somme, and French soldiers were beginning to mutiny. The Italian army had collapsed completely and Russian soldiers were deserting in droves and returning home. Germany appeared to be winning on both fronts. But the slaughter had been too great and the British and the French were unwilling to stop fighting short of a victory. The only way to justify the carnage and the horrific loss of life was to fight on until victory could be obtained. Moreover, as explained in the previous chapter, Britain had entered the war to destroy Germany as an industrial and commercial rival, and that remained her goal. British leaders were determined to find a way to break the stalemate and win the war, and they knew that the one sure way of doing so was to bring America in on their side. A relentless effort was already under way to bring that about, but so far, without success.

Zionist Jews and the British government had already been finagling behind the scenes over a Jewish homeland in Palestine. In October, 1916, two months prior to the German peace offer, a group of Zionist Jews led by Chaim Weizmann (later the first president of Israel) had met with British leaders with a proposition. If Britain would guarantee the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine after the war, the Jews would use their influence through powerful Jews in America to bring America into the war on the side of Britain and the Allies, which would assure an Allied victory. These Jews were so confident of their power and influence that they virtually guaranteed that they would be able to achieve this.

Sir Arthur Balfour

Chaim Weizmann

At that time, Palestine was under the control of the Ottoman Empire, which was allied to Germany. If Germany were to win the war, the Ottoman Empire would have remained intact with no possibility of a Jewish homeland there, but if the Allies were to win the war, then Britain would control Palestine and be in position to hand it over to the Jews. (Whether or not Britain had the right to give other people’s land to the Jews is another issue.)

[Very informative interview by Jim Rizoli with Benton Bradberry and the story behind his excellent book that exposes the lies behind our “official” understanding of the events of the 20th century whereby Germany is most wrongly portrayed as the “evil villain“. The truth is the very opposite — KATANA.]

NOTE: Commenter mblaineo (see comments section) submitted the full text of the transcript.

I applaud him for his efforts in doing his bit to help bring truth to the public about recent history that is suppressed by our enemies.

“The Myth of Germany Villainy“

Author Ben Bradberry Interviewed

by

Jim Rizoli

January 6, 2016.

Ben Bradberry, who wrote The Myth Of German Villainy, is interviewed by League of Extraordinary RevisionistsCo-Founder, Jim Rizoli.

_______________________

Neither Kaiser Wilhelm nor Adolf Hitler wanted war. Both WWI and WWII were thrust upon Germany by the Allied powers. Germany’s great sin was emerging too late as a consolidated nation-state and upsetting the long established balance of power scheme in Europe. The already established great powers, Britain, France and Russia, joined together in 1914 to destroy this new rival. When Germany rose phoenix-like from the ashes of WWI to again become a great power, they finished. the job with World War II. The deliberate destruction of Germany during the Second World-War can only be compared.to the Roman destruction of ancient Carthage, and it was done for the same reason — to destroy a commercial rival. The “official” history of World Wars I & II, the story we learned in school, is a myth.

As the title “The Myth of German Villainy” indicates, this book is about the mischaracterization of Germany as history’s ultimate “villain“. The “official” story of Western Civilization in the twentieth century casts Germany as the disturber of the peace in Europe, and the cause of both World War I and World War II, though the facts don’t bear that out.

During both wars, fantastic atrocity stories were invented by Allied propaganda to create hatred of the German people for the purpose of bringing public opinion around to support the wars. The “Holocaust” propaganda which emerged after World War II further solidified this image of Germany as history’s ultimate villain. But how true is this “official” story? Was Germany really history’s ultimate villain? In this book, the author paints a different picture. He explains that Germany was not the perpetrator of World War I nor World War II, but instead, was the victim of Allied aggression in both wars. The instability wrought by World War I made the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia possible, which brought world Communism into existence. Hitler and Germany recognized world Communism, with its base in the Soviet Union, as an existential threat to Western, Christian Civilization, and he dedicated himself and Germany to a death struggle against it. Far from being the disturber of European peace, Germany served as a bulwark which prevented Communist revolution from sweeping over Europe. The pity was that the United States and Britain did not see Communist Russia in the same light, ultimately with disastrous consequences for Western Civilization. The author believes that Britain and the United States joined the wrong side in the war.

About the Author

Benton L. Bradberry served as an officer and aviator in the U.S. Navy from 1955 to 1977, from near the beginning of the Cold War to near its end. His generation was inundated with anti-German propaganda and “Holocaust” lore. Then, in his role as a naval officer and pilot, he was immersed in anti-Communist propaganda and the war psychosis of the Cold War era. He has had a life-long fascination with the history of this period and has read deeply into all aspects of it. He also saw much of Europe during his Navy years and has travelled widely in Europe since. A natural skeptic, he long ago began to doubt that the “propaganda” told the whole story. He has spent years researching “the other side of the story” and has now written a book about it. The author is a graduate of the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, California with a degree in Political Science and International Relations.

(1) Ten years of arduous work in the California Senate as Chairman of the Committee on Un-American Activities has given Senator Tenney a great body of information on vital facts to which newspaper columnists and other political writers, and even academic historians, have no means of access. The reason is obvious. In his strategic position, Senator Tenney not only had opportunities denied to others for uncovering secret data; he even had the power to force the disclosure of much information which would under no circumstances have become known to a writer who was not in a similar position of government authority.

(2) An author’s incumbency in high office or in a strategic position does not, however, guarantee that his book is of major importance. Too many such personages have written books to throw a smoke screen over their own surrenders to political expediency or to alien pressure. Other authors have written books which purport to cover the history of the past half century or to deal with the foreign policy of the United States of America and yet, from fear of an alien minority, make no reference whatever to Middle East, Israel, Jews, Judaism, Khazars, or Zionism! These books name names, but never the names of such history-making Jews as, for example, the Rothschilds, Chaim Weizman, Samuel Untermeyer, Stephen A. Wise, and Louis D. Brandeis — much less the names of those Jews prominent in more recent times in atomic espionage; in the U. S. executive departments, especially Treasury and State; and above all, in the personal staffs of the last three Presidents of the United States.

Books that leave out such topics and such names are worse than useless. They are dangerous. They teach the reader to place the blame for the world’s perilous condition upon people of his own creed and kind, and not where it belongs — upon scheming alien manipulators. Such books present a picture as much distorted from the truth as would be presented by a history of the U. S. Revolutionary War which made no reference to taxation without representation, the Declaration of Independence, and the Continental Congress; and made no mention of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, or other men prominent at the time in influencing public opinion.

[Page 176]

But how, the reader may ask, can one tell without reading it whether a book by a seemingly authoritative author gives a full coverage of its subject? Fortunately, there is an easy test. Consult the index of each book which has attracted your attention. Make your own comparison, and back the book of your choice. The merest glance at the index of ZION’S TROJAN HORSE will show its full and fearless coverage of all phases of its vital subject.

(3) Whatever a man’s former position of authority and however full his coverage of his subject, he cannot have maximum effectiveness unless he writes well. Senator Tenney writes with a confidence and a zeal which the reader immediately senses and shares. Imbued by the emotion of the author, the reader is swept forward through the mass of details which fill the years between Karl Marx and the present. He is both fascinated and terrified by the climactic story of the growth of two tremendous forces, Communism and Zionism, so closely related in their objectives. The reader sees with the horror which can be induced only by superb literary writing how the aims of these two forces, Communism and Zionism, are alike hostile to America as a nation and to the Christian civilization of which our nation is the finest flower. The reader shares the author’s indignation at the subtle way in which Communism and Zionism have played Christian nations against each other in bloody conflict, and is appalled at the combination of subtle infiltration, brazen bullying, and everlasting propaganda with which these two alien forces have ridden rough-shod over the world and have demanded and secured in this country rights and privileges which involve the destruction of America and the degradation of the Christian West.

In Paradise Lost John Milton wrote the epic of the fall of man, a fall which was engineered by an alien intruder into the Garden. In ZION’S TROJAN HORSE, Jack Tenney has written of the fall of American man, and of American women, too, under the blandishments, the bribes, and the intimidation of alien intruders into our garden-spot, America. To read this great book is to arm yourself with knowledge. With your increased knowledge you will feel increased confidence and have a new power to go forth and defend your country, your ideals, and your faith.

DALLAS, TEXAS

DECEMBER 4, 1953

[Page 177]

XI

Anti-Gentilism

Karl Marx’s attack upon religion as “the opium of the people” was not so much an attack upon all religions as it was a war against Christianity. Like most intellectual revolutionary Jews, Marx was no more an adherent of Judaism than he was of Christianity. Ethnically, however, he was a Jew. In substance Marx reminded the Jews that they must not demand equalitywith Christians; they must seek the total destruction of Christianity. Marx believed that the Jew has within himself the privilege of being a Jew. It was his contention that the Jew, as a Jew, has rights that the Christian does not have.

“Why does the Jew demand rights that he does not have and that Christians enjoy?” he asked.

He reasoned that the Jew, in demanding emancipation from the Christian State, demands that the Christian State abandon its religious prejudice.

And he, the Jew, does he abandon his own religious prejudices?

Has he then the right to demand of another that he relinquish his religion? Marx concludes that as long as the State remains Christian; as long as Jew remains Jew, both are equally incapable, the one to give emancipation, and the other to receive it.

Thundering in the columns of “Deutsch·Franzosishe Jahr bucher”,Marx demanded:

“Upon what title do you Jews ground your claim for emancipation? On your religion? It is the mortal foe of the State (Christian) religion.”

The Marxian philosophy does not tolerate compromise.

What then is the Marxian solution?

Concluding that as long as States are Christian and the religion of the Jews is the mortal foe of the state religion, Marx proceeds to lay down the formula for the destruction of Christianity; — the establishment of atheism.

“The most rigid form of opposition between the Jew and the Christian,” he avers, “is the religious opposition. How does one get rid of an opposition? By making it impossible. And how make impossible a religious opposition? By suppressing religion.”

[Page 240]

Marx was willing to concede that the Jew had been emancipated In his day, but in a Jewish manner. He believed that the Jew had been emancipated in precise measure as the Christians had become Jews. He knew that the Jew, “who was merely tolerated in Vienna,” determined by his sole financial power the future of all Europe; that the Jew, who might be without rights in the smallest of the German states, decided the future of Europe. He believed that the Jew had made himself the master of the financial market through the medium of gold which had become a world power, and through the “practical Jewish spirit” which had become the spirit in practice of the Christian people. But, to Marx, this type of emancipation was not enough. Real emancipation, in the Marxist sense, could only be achieved by the total destruction of Christianity.

A tidal wave of atheism rolled across Europe in the wake of Marxism, inundating the low places in Christendom; — surged across the seas to America; rising higher and higher to wash against the walls of colleges and universities, — even to the pulpits of churches that had withstood fire and sword. As the muddy waters churned and seethed the flags of proud States went down to be lost in the flotsam and filth of the flood. Where the waters receded there appeared great scars of erosion on the face of the earth; — scars that reflected the dwindling dignity of man and his vanishing freedoms.

(1) Ten years of arduous work in the California Senate as Chairman of the Committee on Un-American Activities has given Senator Tenney a great body of information on vital facts to which newspaper columnists and other political writers, and even academic historians, have no means of access. The reason is obvious. In his strategic position, Senator Tenney not only had opportunities denied to others for uncovering secret data; he even had the power to force the disclosure of much information which would under no circumstances have become known to a writer who was not in a similar position of government authority.

(2) An author’s incumbency in high office or in a strategic position does not, however, guarantee that his book is of major importance. Too many such personages have written books to throw a smoke screen over their own surrenders to political expediency or to alien pressure. Other authors have written books which purport to cover the history of the past half century or to deal with the foreign policy of the United States of America and yet, from fear of an alien minority, make no reference whatever to Middle East, Israel, Jews, Judaism, Khazars, or Zionism! These books name names, but never the names of such history-making Jews as, for example, the Rothschilds, Chaim Weizman, Samuel Untermeyer, Stephen A. Wise, and Louis D. Brandeis — much less the names of those Jews prominent in more recent times in atomic espionage; in the U. S. executive departments, especially Treasury and State; and above all, in the personal staffs of the last three Presidents of the United States.

Books that leave out such topics and such names are worse than useless. They are dangerous. They teach the reader to place the blame for the world’s perilous condition upon people of his own creed and kind, and not where it belongs — upon scheming alien manipulators. Such books present a picture as much distorted from the truth as would be presented by a history of the U. S. Revolutionary War which made no reference to taxation without representation, the Declaration of Independence, and the Continental Congress; and made no mention of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, or other men prominent at the time in influencing public opinion.

[Page 176]

But how, the reader may ask, can one tell without reading it whether a book by a seemingly authoritative author gives a full coverage of its subject? Fortunately, there is an easy test. Consult the index of each book which has attracted your attention. Make your own comparison, and back the book of your choice. The merest glance at the index of ZION’S TROJAN HORSE will show its full and fearless coverage of all phases of its vital subject.

(3) Whatever a man’s former position of authority and however full his coverage of his subject, he cannot have maximum effectiveness unless he writes well. Senator Tenney writes with a confidence and a zeal which the reader immediately senses and shares. Imbued by the emotion of the author, the reader is swept forward through the mass of details which fill the years between Karl Marx and the present. He is both fascinated and terrified by the climactic story of the growth of two tremendous forces, Communism and Zionism, so closely related in their objectives. The reader sees with the horror which can be induced only by superb literary writing how the aims of these two forces, Communism and Zionism, are alike hostile to America as a nation and to the Christian civilization of which our nation is the finest flower. The reader shares the author’s indignation at the subtle way in which Communism and Zionism have played Christian nations against each other in bloody conflict, and is appalled at the combination of subtle infiltration, brazen bullying, and everlasting propaganda with which these two alien forces have ridden rough-shod over the world and have demanded and secured in this country rights and privileges which involve the destruction of America and the degradation of the Christian West.

In Paradise Lost John Milton wrote the epic of the fall of man, a fall which was engineered by an alien intruder into the Garden. In ZION’S TROJAN HORSE, Jack Tenney has written of the fall of American man, and of American women, too, under the blandishments, the bribes, and the intimidation of alien intruders into our garden-spot, America. To read this great book is to arm yourself with knowledge. With your increased knowledge you will feel increased confidence and have a new power to go forth and defend your country, your ideals, and your faith.

DALLAS, TEXAS

DECEMBER 4, 1953

[Page 177]

IX

The League of Nations

The League of Nationsmay be said to have been founded by President Woodrow Wilson, although the idea was not original with him. Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, speaking at Washington, D. C., In May of 1916 before the League to Enforce Peacewas more emphatic in his endorsement of the plan than was Wilson. Said Lodge:

“I do not believe that when Washington warned us against entangling alliances he meant for one moment that we should not join with other civilized nations of the world if a method could be found to diminish war and encourage peace.”

Said President Wilson:

“We are participants, whether we would or not, in the life of the world … every people has a right to choose the sovereignty under which they shall live … the small states of the world have a right to enjoy the same respect for their sovereignty and for their territorial integrity that the great and powerful nations expect and insist upon … the world has a right to be free from every disturbance of its peace that has its origin In aggression and disregard of the rights of peoples and nations … I say that the United States is willing to become a partner in any feasible association of nations formed in order to realize these objects and make them secure against violation.”

The League to Enforce Peacewas supported and ultimately supplanted by other organizations whose sponsorship more definitely reflected the current left-wing, socialist and collective viewpoint. As has already been shown, the leading organizations of Jewry throughout the world were already on record for, and actually promoting, an international federation. The League of Free Nations Associations, although further to the left than the League to Enforce Peace, worked with the latter group, and was one of the first to endorse the League of Nations Covenant. The League of Free Nations Associationsbecame the New York Foreign Policy Associationafter the war and oriented its activities toward the ultimate consummation of its original purposes.

[Page 229]

That ultimate world government is one of the objectives of socialism was clearly revealed in the activities of the Fabian Societyof England for the League of Nations Covenant. The Fabiansworked closely with the League of NationsSocietyIn propagandizing for an international organization. ALeague of Nations Societywas also created in France.

The League of NationsSocietywas organized in London in May of 1915. It was the outgrowth of a series of meetings instigated by the Fabians. W. H. Dickinson, M. P., became the organization’s first chairman. He had been prominently identified with the World Alliance for International Friendship Through the Churches. In March of 1916 Theodore Marburg, who founded the League to Enforce Peacein the United States June 17, 1915, addressed the League of NationsSocietyand declared:

“that the objects of the League to Enforce Peace and the League of NationsSociety were almost the same.”

By November 1916 the League of NationsSocietyboasted of 300 members.

In July of 1917 Lord Parmoor was a Vice-President of the Society. Noll Buxton, M. P., G. Lowes Dickinson, and L. S. Woolf were members of the Executive Committee.

In July of 1918 a letter of invitation to join a League of Free Nations Associationwas circulated. Among those who signed the invitation were Professor Gilbert Murray and H. G. Wells.

By November of that year the League of Free Nations Associationand the League of Nations Society merged into a new organization -the League of Nations Union. On the first General Council of the Union were:

Lord Robert Cecil;

Professor Gilbert Murray;

J. H. Thomas;

J. R. Clynes;

H. N. Brailsford;

J. M. Kenworthy;

J. C. Wedgwood;

Miss Maud Royden;

and R. H. Tawney.

(Brailsford, in 1921, wrote a Preface to Trotsky’s “The Defense of Terrorism!’) ‘The Outline of History”,by H. G. Wells — “written with the advice and editorial help of Mr. Ernest Barker… and Professor Gilbert Murray” — made its first appearance in semi-monthly parts.

Its purpose is clearly evident now. In addition to its mental orientation toward atheism, socialism and internationalism, it attempts to lay the ground-work for a super-world government.

Douglas Reed describes Wells as;

“a disbeliever and sedentary pamphleteer in whose mind Inconsequent ideas scurried about from first reaction to second thought and later afterthought like riotous mob that surges forwards to destroy, reels backward at the word ‘police’, and then scatters and scuttles through the byways, throwing a random stone from aimless rage.”

Although he was ultimately to declare that he saw “the world as a jaded world devoid of recuperative power”, Wells envisioned the “world state” in his Outline of Historyas an inevitable historical development. “It will be based,” he declared;

“upon a common world religion, very much simplified and universalized and better understood. This will not be-Christianity nor Islam nor Buddhism nor any such specialized form of religion…”

[Page 230]

Whatever else may be said of Well’s contribution to the “world-super-state” idea, his “Outline of History” became an important adjunct to the propaganda machine designed for the destruction of patriotism in Great Britain and the United States.

Thus, socialists, pro-communists and Zionists, together with their stooges and innocents, promoted the League of Nationsand laid the foundation for world government. One world war could not quite accomplish the ultimate objective. It is extremely doubtful that World War II achieved it.

World War III?

“The events of August, 1914,” wrote H. G. Wells, “seem to have taken President Wilson, like the rest of his fellow-countrymen, by surprise. We find him cabling an offer of his services as a mediator on August 3rd. Then, for a time, he and America watched the conflict. At first neither the American people nor their President seem to have had a very clear or profound understanding of that long-gathered catastrophe. Their tradition for a century had been to disregard the problems of the Old World, and it was not to be lightly changed… President Wilson and the American people were dragged into the war by this supreme folly (unrestricted submarine warfare of the Germans). And also they were dragged into a reluctant attempt to define their relations to Old World politics in some other terms than those of mere aloofness. Their thoughts and temper changed very rapidly…”

President Wilson declared that a durable peace must be “peace without victory.” Within a few days (April 6, 1917) Congress, at his direction, declared war on Germany. The President announced that it was a “war to end war” and that its purpose was to “make the world safe for democracy.” History is only now underscoring the tragic asininity of this double-talk. Peace and victory came November 11, 1918 and Wilson rushed to Paris and proceeded to lose both.

[Page 231]

Marxism not only advocates the necessity for the destruction of religion in its quest for power but Marxists everywhere similarly work for the abolition of nationalism. “Religion” and “patriotism” are the outer ramparts of Christian civilization, and they must first be destroyed if the forces of Marxism are to conquer and dominate the world. Because patriotism and nationalism are the natural and logical result of the integrated family unit Marxism strikes also at the family. It too must be destroyed and its component parts reduced to the common collectivity. It does not stop, even here.

The dignity of man, his initiative, his individuality-all must be leveled to the common denominator.

Propagandists of the Socialist and Communist persuasion subtly attack “mother”, “home”, “heaven”, “the flag”, “fatherland”, and “patriotism.” These cherished and respected terms, together with the sacred things they represent, are made to appear ridiculous and “reactionary”; — obsolete remnants of tribalism perpetuated by sinister men who wish to plunge the world into frequent bloodbaths for the purpose of making money. To these propagandists the “elaborate inculcation” of these concepts into the minds of people constitute the process of “manufacturing” patriots. Such patriots, from the Marxian viewpoint, are “provincial”, mentally “immature” and “reactionary”. To organized Jewrypatriotism is equivalent to nationalism; nationalism equivalent to fascism, — and fascism means “anti-Semitism.” This Jewish concept, of course, applies only to Gentile patriotism and has no references to Jewish nationalism.

Some “scientific” critics of patriotism advance the theory that nationalism is a form of overdeveloped “ethnocentrism” (regarding one’s own race as the chief interest and the center of culture) a Greek combining form that tends to give the entire subject a bad odor. By diagnosing the natural phenomenon as “ethnocentrism” the propagandist is enabled to elaborate upon the “malady” without fear of contradiction because he has thereby removed the subject from the realm of the simple and the knowable into the sphere of the pseudo-scientific and the conjecturaL He may therefore say that ethnocentrism is characterized by unreasonable antipathy and hostility toward all those who are not members of a given nation, and that such words as “alien” and “stranger” are synonymous to “enemy” in the mind of the ethnocentrist.

Most of the critics of patriotism are in agreement that nationalism is chiefly a menace to the Socialists, Communists, the Jews and other aliens who represent a disruptive element within a given country. Although they do not so frankly state it, the meaning is clear. The principle that all beleaguered individuals and groups tend to protect themselves when under harassment or attack — preservation is the first law of nature — is forgotten and brushed aside.

[Page 232]

Both the Socialists and the Communists boldly proclaim their intention to destroy the freedom of the individual, to confiscate his property and regiment his life. Organized Jewry, either as an ally of the Marxists or as an independent nation within a nation, insists on maintaining an independent status with or without dual citizenship. The resultant resentment on the part of those who resist Communist and Jewish objectives is labeled “fascism” — which, of course, it is not. Nations have been acting very much the same in these respects ever since the beginning of recorded history.

These apostles of collectivity go much further In their incessant attacks upon the resistive powers of those they have marked for destruction. They preach that advocates of military preparedness and strong foreign policy are the “extreme nationalists” and the potential “Nazis” and “Fascists.” If the mental reflexes of a nation may be thoroughly conditioned in accord with this “line” — it will fail to resist when attacked and perish without lifting a finger in its own defense. If a nation’s leaders can be made to believe that fear of Communism is “collective paranoia”,and preparedness against the Soviet Union is “military megalomania” then the destruction of Western Christian Civilization may be achieved without too much physical exertion on the part of its enemies.

These defamers of patriotism apparently find nothing wrong with the individuals and groups — the Socialists and Communists who have publicly proclaimed their intention to destroy all nations — except the Soviet Union. To threaten the lives, property and freedoms of men everywhere appears to be a high virtue when practiced by Communists; to insist on remaining a nation within the nations of the world; to invade and steal a country; — these things appear to be idealistic when advocated and accomplished by organized Jewry and Zionists.

President Wilson’s “self-determination” and “political independence” for all nations are planks in the Wilsonian platform for world government that have been somewhat embarrassing to the propagandists of internationalism. To attack these fundamental principles of the Wilson formula is to endanger the prestige that Wilson represents in the drive for world power. If nations may reserve the right of self-determination and political independence — and these rights are protected by the concerted power of nations — it is quite obvious that world domination by any single group is impossible. So, with or without Wilson, “self determination” and “political independence” must be treated as sinister symptoms of “ethnocentrism” and thrown in the ash-can with “mother”, “home”, “heaven”, “flag” and “country.” When Wilson spoke of the “rights of small nations” he believed in the principle.

[Page 233]

That he either had his tongue in his cheek, indulging in psychological warfare, or was exhibiting latent “fascist” tendencies is untenable. But, as all of these principles constitute formidable obstacles along the Marxist advance to world power the proponents of internationalism are determined to obliterate them from the minds of men.

Irrendentism may be said to be another road-block to the ideological conquest of the world. It is a word that is little used.

It refers to the principles, policy, or practice of a party, or of persons, who seek to reincorporate within their national boundary territory of which their nation has been deprived. It is, according to the “brain-washers”, another form of extreme nationalism unless applied to Zionism (although the definition does not cover the facts as they apply to Palestine). Like all other forms of nationalism, Irrendentism is conveniently considered a world peace disturbing nuisance (except in certain obvious cases, — the Soviet Union and Zionism) and it therefore is listed by the internationalists with the other “obnoxious” characteristics of nationalism.

Homogeneity — same character, like nature or kind — is another symptom of paranoia of the nationalistic mind according to the Marxist proponent of “one worldism”. The demand for homogeneity on the part of the people of a given country is always depicted as a persecution of minorities because of race, language or religion. The internationalist never recognizes the factors of allegiance, political assimilation or national solidarity, — except as they are manifestations of his own philosophy. The antagonistic, hostile activities of foreign-born anarchists, Socialists, Communists and Zionists, all working against the interest of the country of their adoption or refuge are not considered unusual, ungrateful or worthy of comment by Marxian propagandists. In countries such as the United States and Great Britain, where the discordant and unassimilable elements of the world have found freedom and hospitality, the cry against homogeneity has been greatest. It is not enough, of course, that these refugees find haven and freedom. They must of necessity continue to create the frictions that caused their expulsion from their native lands. It is not enough for them to become Englishmen and Americans with the freedom to exercise their particular religious beliefs; it is not enough to enjoy the rights of citizenship; they must destroy the homogeneous instincts of the majority so that their own minority homogeneity may pass unnoticed.

The United States has, in truth, been the melting pot of the world. It has successfully assimilated most of the nations of Europe.

[Page 234]

The homogeneity that emerged was not so much of language, race, religion and culture as it was of a new and unique concept of freedom. The United States generously opened its arms to the oppressed of the world and most of those who came gratefully merged into the American pattern. Only the hordes of Khazar Jews, with their twin philosophies of Marxism and Zionism, have refused to assimilate. On the one hand they have insisted on being a separate people; a fragmentized nation in dispersion, and on the other hand they have sought to refashion the religion, the traditions and the customs of the land of their exile. Their members predominate among the revolutionary and subversive forces at work within the country and their names are always listed where treason and traitors are exposed. They seek, through every medium of propaganda, the universal acceptance of heterogeneity so that their failure to assimilate may pass unnoticed in the resultant dissonance.

The Comite des Delegations Juives aupres de la Conference de Paixsought to insure heterogeneity within nations through “minority” treaties between the new States carved out of Europe at the “Peace table” and the Allied Powers, and enforced by the international machinery of the League of Nations. The. first of these “minority treaties” was imposed upon Poland. Czechoslovakia was next (September 10, 1919), with Jugoslavia (September 10, 1919), Rumania (December 9, 1919), and Greece (August 10, 1920) following. The Treaty of St. Germanwith Austria (September 10, 1919), the Treaty of Neuillywith Bulgaria (November 27, 1919), and Treaty of Lausannewith Turkey (July 24, 1923) contain clauses modeled upon the Polish treaty for the establishment of the principles of heterogeneity. Albania and the Baltic States were ultimately forced into line. Fifteen States in all were compelled to protect the indigestible elements within their frontiers, thus crippling their national development and insuring violent eruptions beyond the power of any international organization to control.

Under the provisions of these treaties the “minorities” were placed under the protection of the League of Nationsas subjects of “international concern.” The Permanent Court of International Justicewas given jurisdiction of disputes arising out of alleged infractions of the minority provisions.

When President Wilson arrived in Paris in January of 1919 he declared that the League is “the central object of our meeting” and, in spite of the attitudes of Lloyd George and Clemenceau he insisted that the Peace Conference take up the League of Nationsproposal before considering political and territorial matters. Wilson headed a commission of nineteen which was able to present a tentative draft of the Covenant to the Conference on February 14.

President Wilson called it “a guarantee of peace.” On April 28, 1919 the document, with some revisions, was adopted unanimously by the Conference. The League of Nationswas given official status on January 10, 1920.

[Page 235]

One of the functions of the League of Nations(later to become an integral part of United Nations’philosophy for the emergence of a super-world government) was the promotion of “international cooperation” in the fields of world health, labor, transportation, communications, finances, etc. Although the Covenant did not provide for or authorize their creation, the Council established commissions to deal with these objectives. TheEconomic and Financial Organization, Organization for Communications and Transit, International Office of Public Health(established at Paris) and the International Committee on Intellectual Cooperationwere among the important permanent bodies created. The International Committee on Intellectual Cooperationcoordinated the work of such sub-groups as the International Research Council, the Institute of International Law, the International Academic Union, etc. An International Institute of Intellectual Cooperationwas established in Paris in 1924. The International Cinematographic Institute, together with innumerable committees of one kind or another, ultimately became known as the Intellectual Cooperation Organization.

Among others, the Advisory Commission on the Traffic in Opium and other Dangerous Drugsand the International Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Women and Childrenmay be mentioned as salutary efforts on the part of the League to deal with international evils.

The International Labor Organizationwas the result of Article 23 of the Covenant of the League. Its primary purpose was the promotion of uniform labor legislation throughout the world. Its efforts, as might have been expected, were futile. The United States became a member by Presidential proclamation August 20, 1934. Isador Lubin was the first United States Government representative. The International Labor Organizationwas destined to survive the League fiasco and become an affiliate of the United Nations.

Although the Bank for International Settlementswas not strictly a League of Nationsorganization its role in the over-all development of internationalism is important. It was created in 1930 to act as trustee and agent for the creditor governments in the collection and allocation of indemnity payments. Its stock of one hundred million dollars was underwritten by banks in Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, Belgium and the United States. The United States Federal Reserve Banks were not permitted to participate.

By the end of 1938 the failure of the League of Nationswas almost complete. Of the sixty-two nations that had once constituted its membership only forty-nine remained. With the close of 1940 it had ceased to exist. It had gone the way of its predecessors, the Holy Alliance, the Concert of Europeand the Permanent Court of Arbitration. It failed because humanity had not been reduced to its common denominator and because its machinery had not been designed for physical persuasion. “Mother”, “home”, “the flag”, “heaven” and “country” were yet too deeply rooted in the minds and hearts of the people. Another and, perhaps yet another, world catastrophe would be necessary before such “reactionary” concepts would be blasted from the breasts of human beings.

[Page 236]

X

AGITATION FOR WORLD WAR II

Meanwhile organized Jewry’s campaign within the nations of the world and its continuous use of the rostrum in the Palace of the League of Nationsat Geneva brought the world closer to new disaster. The internal affairs of German Upper Silesia were under attack in 1936 and 1937 and the conflict was sharpened considerably by Poland’s declaration that she would no longer be bound by the “minority treaty.”

The question of ten thousand Jews in the Free City of Danzig was the basis for considerable agitation before the League of Nations. The special status for the small Jewish population was a continuous sore spot. The imposition of special privileges led to natural resentment on the part of the people of Danzig, which was immediately attended by vigorous condemnation on the part of world Jewry. Resentment gave way to frustration and excesses.

The Government attempted to throw off the chains of the treaty.

Although the activities of the representatives of world Jewry before the League of Nationsaccomplished little or nothing for the Jews of Danzig the resultant publicity was grist in the mill for organized Jewry’s campaign against Germany throughout the nations of the world.

Meanwhile most of the Jews in the free city of Danzig had departed.

The annexation of Austria on March 11, 1938 was the signal for an appeal by the World Jewish Congressto the League of Nationsfor protection of that country’s one hundred and ninety two thousand Jews. Similar appeals were made from time to time both in behalf of the Jews of Austria and of Czechoslovakia. Hitler’s concern for his blood-brothers in the Sudetenland — similarly duplicated by organized Jewry’s concern for its own blood-brethern was a coincidence that appeared to pass unnoticed.

[Page 237]

Poland — which contained the greatest Jewish population finally became the principal issue. The World Jewish Congressinitiated a series of public demonstrations designed to arouse indignation throughout the world. A conference on the Polish Jewish question was organized by the American Jewish Congressin New York City January 31, 1937. Two thousand three hundred and ninety-six delegates representing eight hundred and thirty-five Jewish organizations attended. A similar conference was held in London on April 6, 1937 under the auspices of the British Section of the World Jewish Congress. Its one hundred delegates purported to speak for the religious, fraternal, Zionist and labor organization of British Jewry. The Canadian Jewish Congressstaged a series of protest demonstrations during the same month. On June 1, 1937 the Federation des Societes Juives de Franceconvoked a protest meeting in Paris. An “emergency conference” was called in New York City on June 10, 1937 attended by two thousand four hundred and sixty-two delegates from eight hundred and seventy organizations. A delegation of two hundred headed by Dr. Stephen S. Wise was dispatched to Washington with a memorandum addressed to the State Department. Why two hundred delegates were necessary is better guessed than explained. The memorandum recited the oppression of the Jews in Poland. Its presentation by Dr. Wise to Secretary of State Cordell Hull on July 12, 1937 was dramatized by a public declaration protesting the treatment of the Jews in Poland signed by one hundred and fourteen non-Jews in the fields of “religion, science, literature, and education.”

The World Jewish Congressstepped up its clamor during succeeding months. The Socialists, the Communists and left-wing groups added their voices. At the initiative of the Congress, meetings and demonstrations swept across the world. Declarations, manifestos, and petitions cluttered the streets and the desks of public officials. In Belgium seventy university professors, writers and social leaders, addressed statements of solidarity and protest to the Conseil des Associations Juives.

A protest, signed by twenty five French authors and college professors, supplemented a similar protested by the League of the Rights of Man. Resolutions, statements, protests and declarations multiplied through the wizardry of the World Jewish Congress: — a resolution from the Polish League of Peace and Freedomin Warsaw; a statement from the International League for Academic Freedom; a protest from the Institute of International Education; a declaration from the American Student Union; a resolution from the American Federation of Teachers, and others too numerous to mention.

In answer, Poland, in 1938, adopted a law providing that persons who had been abroad for a period of five continuous years would be deprived of their Polish citizenship and forbidden to return to Poland. Jews, among others, who had been absent from Poland more than five years were interned in a camp at Zbaszyn when they attempted to re-enter the country. The World Jewish Congressimmediately intervened with the Polish Ambassadors in Paris and Washington. Dr. M. L, Perlzweig was dispatched to Warsaw to take the matter up with the Polish government. World War II intervened and German troops invaded Poland before Dr. Perlzweig was able to get down to cases with the officials of the government.

[Page 238]

The World Jewish Congressused the efforts of the Rumanian government to throw off the shackles of Versailles to the best advantage along with its other activities. The Congress actually boasts of its successful efforts in “the early overthrow” of one of the Rumanian governments by stating that “it is no mere conjecture” that the “efforts of the World Jewish Congress were responsible.” As Rumania struggled with the handcuffs of the “minority” clauses of the treaty, organized Jewry capitalized on the “persecution of the Jews” within the country.

In January of 1938 the Prime Minister of Rumania declared that four waves of immigration had brought between 250,000 to 500,000 Jews into the country and the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated that Rumanian Jews were not entitled to a special status over other citizens. A Royal Decree of January 22, 1938 ordered the revision of the citizenship status of all Jews in Rumania.

The World Jewish Congressinvoked the provisions of the “minority” treaty clauses before the League of Nationsand dispatched strong protests to the French and British Foreign Ministers. Dr. Perlzweig in London, Marc Jarblum in Paris, and Dr. Kubowitzki in Brussels descended on the Foreign Offices of the respective governments. Dr. Wise was in constant communication with the White House in Washington. The Rumanian government was compelled to resign on February 10, 1938.

In May of 1938 the Hungarian government proposed to limit the number of Jewish employees in all branches of economy to twenty percent of the population. The WJC intervened. In Iraq, Uruguay and in all parts of the world where Jews resided the World Jewish Congressproceeded to tell their respective governments that their Jewish citizens were a peculiar people with very special and exceptional rights. There was no cessation in the outcry; no relaxation of the drums of war.

In the beginning organized Jewry had declared war on the central governments of Europe and had sought to impose its will on their people through treaty provisions and the machinery of the League of Nations. In the end they made their war a world war and involved most of the civilized nations in the conflagration.

In the end few would remember what it was. all about, how it started and why. No one would be certain who led the demonstrations, signed the declarations, made the protests and passed the resolutions. Men would march and men would die; battles would be fought that would take the names of nations and oceans; there would be sacrifice, tears, blood and sweat. But, when it was over the people of the world would not really remember very much about it. Some might recall that it had been frightful in the sacrifice of Christian blood and staggering in the waste of Gentile wealth.

Some might slowly learn that there had been no real victory and that the promised peace was to be as chimerical as had been the “war to end war” and the struggle to “make the world safe for democracy.”

[Page 239]

_______________________________________

Version History & Notes

Version 1: Published Jul 14, 2015

__________________

Notes

* The original text was part of a larger work, hence the page numbering starting from p. 175.

* Images not in the original document.

* Footnotes are not in the original document.

* Cover page is a modified version of the original.

__________________

Knowledge is Power in Our Struggle for Racial Survival

(Information that should be shared with as many of our people as possible — do your part to counter Jewish control of the mainstream media — pass it on and spread the word) … Val Koinen at

(1) Ten years of arduous work in the California Senate as Chairman of the Committee on Un-American Activities has given Senator Tenney a great body of information on vital facts to which newspaper columnists and other political writers, and even academic historians, have no means of access. The reason is obvious. In his strategic position, Senator Tenney not only had opportunities denied to others for uncovering secret data; he even had the power to force the disclosure of much information which would under no circumstances have become known to a writer who was not in a similar position of government authority.

(2) An author’s incumbency in high office or in a strategic position does not, however, guarantee that his book is of major importance. Too many such personages have written books to throw a smoke screen over their own surrenders to political expediency or to alien pressure. Other authors have written books which purport to cover the history of the past half century or to deal with the foreign policy of the United States of America and yet, from fear of an alien minority, make no reference whatever to Middle East, Israel, Jews, Judaism, Khazars, or Zionism! These books name names, but never the names of such history-making Jews as, for example, the Rothschilds, Chaim Weizman, Samuel Untermeyer, Stephen A. Wise, and Louis D. Brandeis — much less the names of those Jews prominent in more recent times in atomic espionage; in the U. S. executive departments, especially Treasury and State; and above all, in the personal staffs of the last three Presidents of the United States.

Books that leave out such topics and such names are worse than useless. They are dangerous. They teach the reader to place the blame for the world’s perilous condition upon people of his own creed and kind, and not where it belongs — upon scheming alien manipulators. Such books present a picture as much distorted from the truth as would be presented by a history of the U. S. Revolutionary War which made no reference to taxation without representation, the Declaration of Independence, and the Continental Congress; and made no mention of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, or other men prominent at the time in influencing public opinion.

[Page 176]

But how, the reader may ask, can one tell without reading it whether a book by a seemingly authoritative author gives a full coverage of its subject? Fortunately, there is an easy test. Consult the index of each book which has attracted your attention. Make your own comparison, and back the book of your choice. The merest glance at the index of ZION’S TROJAN HORSE will show its full and fearless coverage of all phases of its vital subject.

(3) Whatever a man’s former position of authority and however full his coverage of his subject, he cannot have maximum effectiveness unless he writes well. Senator Tenney writes with a confidence and a zeal which the reader immediately senses and shares. Imbued by the emotion of the author, the reader is swept forward through the mass of details which fill the years between Karl Marx and the present. He is both fascinated and terrified by the climactic story of the growth of two tremendous forces, Communism and Zionism, so closely related in their objectives. The reader sees with the horror which can be induced only by superb literary writing how the aims of these two forces, Communism and Zionism, are alike hostile to America as a nation and to the Christian civilization of which our nation is the finest flower. The reader shares the author’s indignation at the subtle way in which Communism and Zionism have played Christian nations against each other in bloody conflict, and is appalled at the combination of subtle infiltration, brazen bullying, and everlasting propaganda with which these two alien forces have ridden rough-shod over the world and have demanded and secured in this country rights and privileges which involve the destruction of America and the degradation of the Christian West.

In Paradise Lost John Milton wrote the epic of the fall of man, a fall which was engineered by an alien intruder into the Garden. In ZION’S TROJAN HORSE, Jack Tenney has written of the fall of American man, and of American women, too, under the blandishments, the bribes, and the intimidation of alien intruders into our garden-spot, America. To read this great book is to arm yourself with knowledge. With your increased knowledge you will feel increased confidence and have a new power to go forth and defend your country, your ideals, and your faith.

DALLAS, TEXAS

DECEMBER 4, 1953

[Page 177]

VIII

Conquest of the Jewish Communities

Groundwork for World Government

The success of Comite des Delegations Juivesin putting over a major portion of organized Jewry’s program on the legitimate representatives of the Peace Conference encouraged the perpetuation of the Committee. An ad hoc organization in the beginning it now became permanent, dropping “aupres de la Conference de la Paix” from its title. Leo Motzkin became the leading figure in the post Conference activities of the Committee.

[Image] Leo Motzkin

Its real purpose appears to have been political. It exerted itself in the League of Nationsas other Jewish organizations were to do at a later day in the United Nations. It purported to speak for Jews everywhere. Many of its leaders were active in the Interparliamentary Union, the International Congresses of Minoritiesand the International Union of League of Nations Associations. Among these individuals were:

Leo Motzkin;

Max Laserson;

Dr. Emil Margulies;

Dr. Jacob Robinson;

Rabbi Z. P. Chajes;

Meir Dizengoff;

Nathan Feinberg;

Dr. Oscar Karbach;

and Dr. Benzion Mossinson.

[Page 220]

In 1920 the Comite des Delegations Juivesproposed that the Conference for a Permanent American Jewish Congresscreate a Council of Jewish Delegations (Vaad Haaratzoth)to be composed of delegates of national congresses or similar bodies. Dr. Leo Motzkin came to the United States in 1923 and on May 13 he addressed the Executive Committee of the American Jewish Congress, advocating the creation of a World Conference of Jews.

[Part 6]

“I am deeply stirred by the word which Ulrich Hutten wrote the last time he seized his pen: — Germany.”

ADOLF HITLER

January 30th, 1937

The Case for Germany

A Study of Modern Germany

by

A. P. Laurie

M. A. Cantab., D. Sc., LL. D. Edin., F. C. S., F. R. S. E.

With a Preface by Admiral Sir Barry Domvile

K. B. E., C. B., C. M. G.

Berlin W 15

Internationaler Verlag

1939

FIRST EDITION ………… JUNE 1939

SECOND EDITION ……. JULY 1939

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

PRINTED IN GERMANY

DEDICATION

It is with admiration and gratitude for the great work he has done for the German people that I dedicate this book to the Fuhrer.

A. P. L.

TO THE READER

There are two sides to every question. You have read one side in our Press for six years.

This book gives the other side.

A. P. L.

PREFACE

It is a great pleasure to me to introduce the public to Dr. Laurie’s valuable book on modern Germany. He is best known to the world as a brilliant scientist, but he has found time in the intervals of his work to pursue with ardour the task upon which every sensible member of the British and German races should be engaged — namely the establishment of good relations and a better understanding between these two great nations.

Dr Laurie knows full well that this friendship is the keystone to peace in Europe — nay, in the whole world.

He is one of the small group who founded the Association known as “The Link”, whose sole aim is to get Britons and Germans to know and understand one another better. He is one of the most zealous workers in this good cause in the country.

He writes of the National Socialist movement with knowledge and great sympathy.

The particular value of this book lies in the fact that it is written by a foreigner, who cannot be accused of patriotic excess in his interpretation of the great work done by Herr Hitler and his associates. I recommend this volume with confidence to all people who are genuinely impressed with the desire to understand one of the greatest — and most bloodless — revolutions in history.

BARRY DOMVILE

Robin’s Tree

8th May 1939.

“As we advance in our social knowledge, we shall endeavour to make our governments paternal as well as judicial; that is, to establish such laws and authorities as may at once direct us in our occupations, protect us against our follies, and visit us in our distresses; a government which shall repress dishonesty, as now it punishes theft; which shall show how the discipline of the masses may be brought to aid the toils of peace, as the discipline of the masses has hitherto knit the sinews of battle; a government which shall have its soldiers of the ploughshare as well as its soldiers of the sword, and which shall distribute more proudly its golden crosses of industry — golden as the glow of the harvest — than it now grants its bronze crosses of honour — bronzed with the crimson of blood.”

RUSKIN. Political Economy of Art.

“All front fighters fought side by side and went through an inferno. They are all comparable to the heroes of the ancient world. It was the manhood of the nations in their prime who fought and experienced the horrors of modern war.

In another war the flower of the nations’ men and women will have to fight. Europe will be destroyed if the best in all of the nations are wiped out. A new conflict will exceed even the ghastly tragedies of the Great War.

I believe that those who rattle the sabres have not participated in war. I know that war veterans speak and think differently.

They energetically desire to prevent another conflict. I hope that the men who are standing before me can contribute to preserve the peace of the world — a peace of honour and equality for all.

Let us not talk of prestige as between the victors and the defeated. This is my one request: Forget what has divided the nations before and remember that history has advanced.”

Field Marshal GOERINGaddressing the British

and German war veterans.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER ……………………………………………………………. PAGE

Dedication

To the Reader

Preface

Field Marshall Goering’s Address

I. DER FUHRER ……………………………………………………….. 11

II. THE BELEAGUERED CITY ……………………………………. 21

III. NATIONAL SOCIALISM ……………………………………… 25

IV. THE NAZI RALLYS AT NUREMBERG ……………………. 34

V. THE FOREIGN POLICY OF GERMANY ……………………. 41

VI. ENGLAND AND GERMANY ………………………………….. 49

VII. MARCH 7th, A MOST IMPORTANT DATE …………… 54

VIII. THE REAL ENEMY OF EUROPE ……………………….. 58

IX. COMMUNISM VERSUS NATIONAL SOCIALISM …… 62

X. THE UNION OF THE GERMAN PEOPLE …………………. 68

XI. ACTS OF “AGGRESSION” BY GERMANY ……………… 79

XII. THE DANCE OF DEATH ……………………………………… 85

XIII. OUR FUTURE POLICY TOWARDS GERMANY ……. 93

XIV. THE HITLER YOUTH MOVEMENT ……………………… 100

XV. THE WINTER HELP ORGANIZATION ………………….. 104

XVI. NATIONAL SOCIALISM AND THE PROTESTANT

CHURCH ……………………………………………………………………… 109

XVII. ECONOMICS …………………………………………………….. 118

XVIII. THE FOUR YEARS PLAN …………………………………… 138

XIX. THE GERMAN COLONIES …………………………………. 141

XX. THE LABOUR FRONT ………………………………………….. 146

XXI. AGRICULTURE …………………………………………………. 155

XXII. MUNICH AND AFTER ………………………………………… 167

Chapter Twelve

THE DANCE OF DEATH

We have recently developed a habit of holding public meetings to denounce the sins of our neighbours. On such occasions violent and exaggerated statements are made and the whole audience worked up to a condition of glorious indignation and intense moral satisfaction with themselves thanking God as the Pharisee in the Temple, that they are not as this Publican. I cannot find in the scriptures that Our Lord tells us to meet together to confess the sins of our brothers, instead of confessing our own sins, and we are especially warned not to pass judgment. We, like the village gossip, always assume the worst. What effect are such meetings likely to have in the countries which are denounced? We have recently had some experience owing to the German press having at last taken to hitting back, digging out some black passages in our past history, and describing them with the gross exaggeration customary in political propaganda. These attacks in the German press have produced a feeling of intense indignation here. We may criticise our own sins, but are not going to have any damned foreigner doing it for us. It is none of his business, we say. Curiously enough the Germans have just the same feeling about things we say about them, and so the piling up of ill feeling is growing on both sides every day.

It is generally admitted by serious students to-day that the war of 1914 had no legitimate cause, if any cause for war can be regarded as legitimate. There have been in the past economic wars, dynastic wars, religious wars and wars for the conquest of territory, but in 1914 the nations of Europe had no quarrel with each other, and the whole world was prospering and increasing in trade.

[Page 86]

It is true that we were very jealous of the rapid increase of the German export trade, and suspicious of the Fleet they were building although it was much less than half the size of our own, but I doubt if any merchant feeling the pinch of German competition in the world market would have regarded that competition as a justifiable reason for war.

The quarrel between Austria and Serbia could have been settled by reasonable negotiation between Austria and Russia without disturbing the rest of Europe. The only outcome of the war has been that millions of lives were thrown away, and a distracted Europe and an impoverished world left as the only tangible result.

Looking back on those years before the war, I realise that an insidious propaganda against Germany had been carried on for a long time, — why or by whom or with what intent I do not know, — which was gradually poisoning our minds. It is true Germany had the most powerful land army in the world, that the German Emperor had the gift of saying boastful and irritating things, and that there was a pan-German society which amused itself by drawing imaginary maps of a German European Empire. There had also been some trouble over the Agadir incident, when the German Emperor woke up to find that we had presented France with the whole of Morocco which did not belong to us; but there was no justification for saying that Germany meditated wars of conquest, and as an actual fact the German foreign office was in dread of the power of Russia.

What were the facts? Since the war of 1870, for which France and Germany were equally to blame, up to 1914 Germany had been at peace with all the world. We on the other hand had been constantly at war. We had invaded and conquered Egypt, we had made war on the Boers, we had fought in Africa and on the frontiers of India, and had annexed Burma. The gates of the temple of Janus had never been closed; yet we were firmly convinced that we were a peaceful non-aggressive people, and Germany an aggressive military nation.

[Page 87]

Now that no serious student of the events leading up to 1914 that the German government was to blame any more than any other European government including our own, this legend about an aggressive Germany is obviously false; yet it is still believed by many people in this country, and we are told that Hitler is the successor of the Kaiser, and aims at the military conquest of Europe. The last war was psychological, it had no basis on realities, and if there is another war in Europe it will also be psychological.

In the old days of mercenary armies in Europe, two kings might quarrel and let loose their armies on each other without troubling to consult the people, whose first knowledge that war had been declared was when soldiers of both sides began looting their farms. To-day, now that we have conscript armies, it is necessary for the government before it can declare war to rouse the peoples of two countries to such a hatred of each other, that decent Englishmen and decent Germans get out their rifles and try to kill each other. This is done by means of propaganda.

There are of course powerful interests in every country to whom war means big profits and who may be secretly engaged in financing. propaganda and, as I have shown elsewhere, the Socialists and Communists in Europe to-day are exerting every effort to set the four western powers at war; but this is not sufficient to explain the rapid spread of an infection over a country producing all the symptoms of mental rabies. The Press have no scruples about stimulating this mental intoxication if it sells a few more copies of the paper, and do not hesitate about publishing shocking lies, and using the poster to. excite the public.

The most serious danger to Peace is the utter want of any feeling of responsibility on the part of the British, French and American Press and wireless. Let me take a recent example.

The annexation of Bohemia and Moravia, by the German government, and the joining of Memel to the Reich, has caused considerable excitement in this country. It is therefore a time when those responsible for news should do their best to calm and not excite public imagination. The B.B.C. sent out a message that the German government had told the Lithuanian government that if they did not hand over Memel, German planes would bomb the capital of Lithuania, and that while the Lithuanian parliament was meeting, German bombing planes flew backwards and forwards overhead.

[Page 88]

There are poisons known to medicine which are called cumulative poisons. One drop will do no harm, but it remains in the body waiting for the next drop and the next and the next, until sufficient of the poison has accumulated to produce illness and death. The same is true of poisons to the mind. We read in the Press a lie about Germany, next day we read part of a speech denouncing Germany, on the Sunday we hear a sermon in which Germany is attacked. We pick up a magazine lying on the club table and there is an article abusing Germany. And so day by day and week by week and month by month this cumulative poison collects in our minds until the day comes when it produces a mental fever in which all sense of proportion is lost and we are controlled by the horrible delusion that it is our duty to go out and kill.

An interesting example of this occurred in the House of Commons the other day. The leader of the Labour party and the leader of the Liberal party, both accused Franco of having dropped from his planes chocolate boxes containing infernal machines to blow children to pieces. There is a well known morbid disease known as persecution mania which often results in the sufferer committing murder. Both these men have reached this dangerous mental condition. They will not have to commit the murder themselves, but will send other men out to kill and to be killed.

When once war has been declared, the governments of both sides take charge of the propaganda machine and pour out lies about the people on the other side in order to keep hatred at a killing point. Many will remember that during the first year of the war, it was decided by both sides on the French front to have a truce at Christmas with the result that the German and English soldiers got so friendly that if the higher command had not stopped it at once, they would have refused to go on killing each other. I remember the first time I visited France during the war. I went to the camouflage factory and was astounded to find that our officers liked the Germans and only began to use bad language when the Portuguese were mentioned. The hatred of the German which was felt in Great Britain did not extend to the fighting line. As I watched Chinese labourers, French peasant girls, German prisoners and English soldiers all working happily together I wondered what we were fighting about.

[Page 89]

It is also necessary, in order to keep the war fever at its height, to invent a slogan. Our slogan was that we were fighting to save democracy, — the victory of the allies having resulted in the abolition of parliament and the setting up of dictators in nearly every country in Europe.

I have during my life seen the nations of Europe hurled at each other’s throats in a meaningless slaughter by means of lying propaganda, and when I see the same thing going on to-day in an aggravated form, I confess I am very much afraid. The German people who have been carrying through a revolution against enormous odds, have doubtless done many things of which we cannot approve, but these things have not only been exaggerated out of all proportion, but have been successfully used to rouse the most dangerous and bloodthirsty of all human emotions, — moral indignation, and the church has been pressed into service in order to bring us nearer to war. Everywhere the gospel of hate is being preached in the Press and from the pulpit. We are told by those preaching this gospel that they have no hostility to the German people but only to the German government, the wicked Hitler and the dreadful Nazis. If that is true, surely the right way to go about it is to persuade the German people that our view and not their view is right. Surely a hatred of Hitler is not a reason for killing millions of Germans, and incidentally killing millions of Englishmen in the process. If war is declared against Germany, every German whatever his private opinions will line up behind Hitler to defend his fatherland, and after a furious and bloody war, nothing will have been settled and Europe ruined.

We are told that Hitler is going to do this and is going to do that; let us at any rate wait and see if he does do any of these things before we dream of plunging into war.

[Page 90]

The danger of the situation in this country is that good well-meaning people have got trapped by this propaganda and are beginning to think that the killing of Germans is a righteous and Christian act. If these people would go to Germany and visit some of the little German towns and wander about among the decent kindly people and say to themselves when they see a German workman returning to his home, “I am going to kill that man”, and a German mother sitting in a public garden with her children, “I am going to make her a widow, and I am going to drop bombs upon this town and set it blazing in flames with the tortured people dying in agony in the ruins”, all this in the name of the Christian religion, I believe they would go away shuddering at committing such devilry in the name of Christ.

When savage tribes wish to make war upon another tribe, they work their young men up to the killing point by means of war dances which produce the necessary mental intoxication. Our method to-day is more elaborate, but the object and the outcome is the same. The dance of death is getting wilder and wilder in this country, until nothing will satisfy us except a holocaust of blood.

It is obvious that the war propaganda in this country and in America, cannot be kept going without a large expenditure, and the investment of capital in buying up politicians, managing governments, and controlling the British and American Press. It is impossible to find out who really owns the big British dailies behind the scenes, but it is evident that most of them dare not publish anything but anti-German news. Probably the only really free press in England today, are the local weekly newspapers.

Those who handle large sums of money are the International financiers, who do not spend money for ideological reasons, but only to make more money. It was not till I read the story of the political activities of the great Jewish banking firm Kuhn Loeb and Co, and the way in which they controlled American Presidents, and financed the Japanese war against Russia, that I realised the connection between war and high finance, which is the polite name for money lending on a big scale.

[Page 91]

We cannot imagine our dear old orthodox British banks indulging in such unorthodox practices, but they pick up the crumbs which fall from the masters table. The profits are made in handling big loans, the general public finally holding the baby. Since the war, by means of propaganda, the American public have been persuaded to invest large sums in loans to bankrupt South American States, every penny of which has been lost, the financiers making their profit and clearing out.

We had a ramp in the cotton industry, organised by the “City”, which robbed the Lancashire workers of their savings and ruined the industry.

The richest field for plunder for the international financier, is war and rumours of war. Owing to the present bad temper among European nations, some five thousand millions, if we include the U.S.A., is being spent on armaments, with no control on profits here or in America, and most of the money is being borrowed, while war means the borrowing of huge sums by the government at high rates of interest. It is obvious then, that while war ruins nations, it is the best way in which high finance can make enormous profits, the burden of interest being born by future tax payers.

In the second place, as long as Germany and Italy are under their present governments, they will not touch foreign loans, and Germany by her method of internal economy and trading has eliminated the international financier, and those who make profits by playing with foreign exchanges. That is doubtless why the government is being forced by the “City” to start a trade war with Germany. If the economic methods devised by Germany are successful, and spread to other nations, and if Hitler succeeds in his policy of establishing permanent peace in Europe, the high financier will cease to be able to exist. It is therefore their main interest today to plunge the four powers into war, in order to destroy Germany and Italy. Having failed in September to start Europe fighting over a time table, they are now trying to bring in the U.S.A., which has already begun a trade war against Germany. It would be interesting to know the real origin of Roosevelt’s outburst about defending “Christianity, democracy and international good faith”. Who pulled the strings and sat grinning in his bank parlour in New York?

[Page 92]

The organisation of mass propaganda here and in the U.S.A., by financial groups, means the end of democracy, which is based on the free expression of opinion and putting both sides before the people. Not only is the Press and the B.B.C. controlled, but the House of Commons itself is being intimidated, as the Members of Parliament fear their constituents whose minds have been poisoned by mass propaganda. There are many Members of Parliament opposed to our hostility to Germany, but they are afraid to speak in the House.

In fact, we have reached the extraordinary position in this “free and democratic” country, that the only place where a fearless discussion is possible and takes place, is in the House of Lords, where the members separated by their exalted position from the tyranny of machine-made democratic opinion, can speak freely what they believe, and excellent speeches are made opposing our hostility to Germany.

Freedom of speech, a high level of intelligence, and a genuine desire for the public good, apart from the low motives of political life, has deserted the House of Commons, and taken refuge in the House of Lords.

Once their propaganda has been successful, the governments of democratic countries have to yield as our Government has yielded to the outcry about the annexation of Bohemia and Moravia. Only Hitler and Mussolini are strong enough to say No and will keep the peace unless we and France compel them to draw the sword. Unfortunately in this country the “City” pulls the strings, and while our young men will be fighting and dying under the delusion that they were defending Christianity and democracy, they would really be fighting to rake profits for the international financiers.

The vultures of finance gorge on war and rumours of war, and millions of lives are sacrificed to fill their money chests.

[Page 93]

Chapter Thirteen

OUR FUTURE POLICY

TOWARDS GERMANY

The Peace Pact having been signed with Germany, and the German people in Central Europe having accomplished their union under one Reich, with the exception of one minor area, Danzig, the question before the people of this country is what is to be our policy towards Germany in the future.

We must agree that it has not been a wise policy in the past. While on the one hand admitting that the conditions forced on them by the Treaty of Versailles were unfair and would have to be revised, on the other hand instead of arranging with them that the revisal be done by agreement, we have protested against every step they took in this direction. Why could we not have done what we did in the case of Turkey in agreeing to the fortification of the Dardanelles? — a matter much more vital to us than anything happening in Central Europe. Either we could have adopted the policy of the Opposition, said No, and been prepared to back our No with war if necessary, or we could have agreed to the revisal by mutual consent.

Mr. Chamberlain in arranging for a conference of the four Powers to settle the Sudeten German problem, has adopted the policy which we should have adopted from the beginning. The Sudeten German question differed from anything that had happened before, as up to that time Germany had been engaged in internal re-organization and in completing, by the union — with Austria, the policy begun by Bismarck, — a policy which was entirely their own affair. The problem of Sudeten Germany was the first to involve the interests of another state, and was further complicated by the alliance between CzechoSlovakia and France. Germany was therefore quite right in accepting the offer to settle the matter by agreement according to the promise made by Hitler in his speech of March 7th 1936.

[Page 94]

Mr. Chamberlain having initiated this new policy of consultation among the four Powers on any point of disagreement, it is all the more necessary to define our attitude towards Germany.

In order to be able to do this, we must begin by considering what are the vital necessities of the German people, and whether there is any reason why we should oppose them. In considering this question we must put on one side our democratic sentiments, and our disapproval of some of the things the German Government have done within their own country, and look into the question on a purely business basis from the point of view of our Imperial interests.

To deal first with the needs of the German people. There are 80 million Germans living on a small area in Europe with a comparatively poor soil, who cannot like the French obtain all the food they want from the fertile soil of their own country. It is therefore evident that they must either be satisfied with a very low standard of comfort and an underfed population, or develop external trade, or undertake military conquest of new territory.

In spite of the alarm of the Opposition, we may dismiss the idea that Germany is meditating ventures of military conquest. Such a policy must result in ruin and disaster, and though partly successful would not improve her economic position. Even if Hitler is the military filibuster which the Opposition foolishly imagine him to be, we may take it for granted that the average German citizen would rather trade than fight. The days of military conquest and subjugation of other nations in Europe are over, as there is no genuine economic advantage to be obtained from it. This is clearly perceived by the German people and in course of time will doubtless be understood by our own politicians who in this matter are mentally behind the times.

[Page 95]

The only alternative therefore is extended trade, and Germany is making every effort she can to carry out this policy. While trading with any and every nation, she has looked round the world to see whether there is any region open to her which is economically undeveloped and which would supply her with the raw materials she requires. Putting on one side for a time her claim for colonies, and realising the importance of doing nothing to arouse the jealousy and suspicion of Great Britain, she has agreed to a strict limitation of her fleet, and is looking for a development of trade on land areas.

If we look at the map of Europe, we shall recognise that the. obvious direction for her trade expansion is in the countries situated on the Danube and beyond that the Balkans and Turkey, along the lines of the old overland trade route from Asia to Europe. She has already developed a considerable trade with the states on the Danube and with the Balkan states, and is projecting a great canal taking ships up to 1500 tons to connect the Rhine with the Danube.

There can be no question that there are great possibilities of development in these economically backward countries, and that Germany will be of the greatest assistance to them, enabling them to take advantage of modern scientific methods of production.

Although she has been compelled by her economic position to enter into special trade agreements, she is not attempting to claim any monopoly and if she is successful in developing these countries economically, we shall reap some of the benefits. Surely with our world trade and vast Empire, we can allow Germany to cultivate this garden lying at her door. Doubtless these countries will be included in the German “sphere of influence”, whatever that may mean. I cannot see that this is any business of ours, as no vital interests of the British Empire can be affected by the development of trade in the central parts of Europe. It is the right of every nation to adopt the form of government they prefer, and we have no more right to try and compel nations to adopt our political theories by acts of war than the Roman Catholic Church has the right to crush Protestantism by promoting war in Europe. We are a business people engaged in world trade and, avoiding all ideologies, we must look at the whole question from a purely business point of view. To repeat the famous phrase of Bismarck with a difference. — The whole of the Balkans is not worth the life of one British soldier. Surely possessing the world and the fatness thereof, we need not grudge her this line of development.

[Page 96]

There are rumours that the Soviet is breaking up and that the next great national movement is going to be in the Ukraine which formed an independent republic after the war and was afterwards massacred into submission by the Soviet. The Ukrainians in Poland who have been badly treated by the Poles are demanding Home Rule, and the Ukrainians in CzechoSlovakia are evidently in a restless condition. The Ukraine includes the black soil wheat area of Russia on the Dneiper, and could supply unlimited wheat to Germany in return for manufactured goods and will naturally enter into close relations with Germany who will be her natural protectors against the Soviet. Therefore if once an independent Ukraine republic was established and entered into friendly relations with Germany, we should be glad that the essential needs of Germany for raw materials had been satisfied. To quote Hitler:

“A nation which is satisfied and well fed is more likely to keep the peace than a nation which is dissatisfied and hungry.”

Ah, our Opposition will reply, but Germany will be exercising throughout all these regions that vague and mysterious thing called a sphere of influence. As long as they are exercising a sphere of influence results in these nations being contented and well supplied with goods, and therefore secures the peace of Europe, why should we object, and oppose these natural developments which are inevitable because they are based upon the facts of geography. The answer is there is no alternative plan except to make war on the German people and reduce them to such desperate impoverishment and slaughter of so many of their youth, that they are again brought to their condition after the thirty years war and will require a century to recover. Mr. Lloyd George says we can crush them like an eggshell. He would find the eggshell made of tempered steel.

I have searched the pages of Hansard containing the speeches of the Opposition in the recent debate on a vote of censure against the Government’s foreign policy, with a view to finding out what is their alternative policy to the one advocated by Mr. Chamberlain. This alternative policy was given by Mr. Dalton and is worthy of quotation in full.

[Page 97]

“There is once more a possibility, it may not last much longer. There is still one more chance for British diplomacy to bring together into an effective combination all those nations in the East of Europe who are threatened by this German push to the East. They are still there a potential combination, the Soviet Union, Poland, Rumania, Yugo-Slavia, Turkey and Greece. They are all members of the League of Nations, to which we and France still belong. You have still there a potential formidable force if it could be welded together for peace and for organised resistance to further endeavours to dislocate Europe.”

It is unfortunate that men in the responsible position of leaders of the Labour party should be so ignorant of the real situation in Europe to-day. Germany far from dislocating Europe is consolidating Europe by helping to adjust the injustices caused by the peace treaties, and has no intention of threatening any of these countries with aggression. France who has signed a peace pact with Germany and is anxious to develop her trade relations with her, would not support the Labour policy, and the Soviet is too busy with internal affairs and with Japan, to indulge in the venture of a European war at the call of our Labour party. When Mr. Dalton’s delegate called on the governments of Poland, Rumania, Yugo-Slavia, Turkey and Greece, they would receive his proposals with astonishment, and tell him that they were much too busy making profitable trade agreements with Germany.

Mr. Dalton had great hopes of the new Prime Minister of Hungary. If he had listened over the wireless the other day he would have heard the Prime Minister saying that the closest bonds of friendship united Hungary to Germany and Italy, because they would be for ever grateful to them for enabling them to recover their stolen territories from Czecho-Slovakia.

Our policy in Europe in the past has been called securing “the balance of power” which meant that if ever we thought one nation in Europe was getting more powerful than the other nations we made it our business to promote war against that nation, and to support war when it came with our money bags, our fleet and expeditionary forces.

[Page 98]

This policy is openly advocated by Mr. Ramsay Muir who glories in the days of Marlborough and Wellington, and wishes to see them come back again. There can be no question that this policy of the past has cost Europe millions of lives on a hundred battle-fields. We not only promoted wars but when war had once begun supported its continuance with our money bags until the war to quote Mr. Lloyd George was “fought to a finish”, with the result that it ended probably in an unjust treaty which opened the door to future wars.

Can anyone doubt now that if we had adopted Lord Lansdowne’s policy in 1917, and made peace with Germany then, we should have saved all the dangers and difficulties of the last twenty years.

To my mind the policy of the Balance of Power is a damnable policy. We have been in the past the evil genius of Europe. It is surely evident that if the policy of the Opposition was adopted, and could be successfully carried out, blocking Germany’s natural trade expansion in the Danube basin and in the Balkans, the German people confined to a limited area with no hope of commercial development, would be compelled to fight in order to live. The choice therefore is between Mr. Chamberlain’s policy of allowing Germany a free area for commercial expansion, or war — a war in which Germany would be fighting for her life.

The maddest of all nightmares from which the Opposition suffer, is that Germany would attempt a military conquest of the Ukraine. Either she would have to march six hundred miles across Polish territory, to which Poland would naturally object, or if she marched through Czecho-Slovakia would find herself lost in the Carpathian mountains, with no railways or roads, and would still have to violate either Rumanian or Polish territory. The one thing that would save the Soviet, if it is true that it is breaking up, would be an external attack.

The difficulty that Germany and Italy find in dealing with democracies, is that they have no continuity of foreign policy, and therefore States with a stable form of government and a continuity of foreign policy have to be very cautious in their approach to France and Great Britain. France, where the members of the Cabinet are paid their salaries weekly, and Great Britain, where the old policy of continuity of foreign Policy has been abandoned for the pursuit of opposite policies by the Government and the Opposition.

[Page 99]

Since the peace pact with Germany was signed, there has been an outburst of attack on Germany, which started before the new decrees against the Jews, in the Press, by politicians, and from the pulpit, and Germany is naturally anxiously watching to see whether the next election will return the parties of the Left to power, who would denounce the treaty with Italy, and seek for some pretext to declare war on her.

In every capital in Europe, the triumph of the parties of the Left in this country at the next election, would be taken as the red signal for war.

[Part 5]

“I am deeply stirred by the word which Ulrich Hutten wrote the last time he seized his pen: — Germany.”

ADOLF HITLER

January 30th, 1937

The Case for Germany

A Study of Modern Germany

by

A. P. Laurie

M. A. Cantab., D. Sc., LL. D. Edin., F. C. S., F. R. S. E.

With a Preface by Admiral Sir Barry Domvile

K. B. E., C. B., C. M. G.

Berlin W 15

Internationaler Verlag

1939

FIRST EDITION ………… JUNE 1939

SECOND EDITION ……. JULY 1939

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

PRINTED IN GERMANY

DEDICATION

It is with admiration and gratitude for the great work he has done for the German people that I dedicate this book to the Fuhrer.

A. P. L.

TO THE READER

There are two sides to every question. You have read one side in our Press for six years.

This book gives the other side.

A. P. L.

PREFACE

It is a great pleasure to me to introduce the public to Dr. Laurie’s valuable book on modern Germany. He is best known to the world as a brilliant scientist, but he has found time in the intervals of his work to pursue with ardour the task upon which every sensible member of the British and German races should be engaged — namely the establishment of good relations and a better understanding between these two great nations.

Dr Laurie knows full well that this friendship is the keystone to peace in Europe — nay, in the whole world.

He is one of the small group who founded the Association known as “The Link”, whose sole aim is to get Britons and Germans to know and understand one another better. He is one of the most zealous workers in this good cause in the country.

He writes of the National Socialist movement with knowledge and great sympathy.

The particular value of this book lies in the fact that it is written by a foreigner, who cannot be accused of patriotic excess in his interpretation of the great work done by Herr Hitler and his associates. I recommend this volume with confidence to all people who are genuinely impressed with the desire to understand one of the greatest — and most bloodless — revolutions in history.

BARRY DOMVILE

Robin’s Tree

8th May 1939.

“As we advance in our social knowledge, we shall endeavour to make our governments paternal as well as judicial; that is, to establish such laws and authorities as may at once direct us in our occupations, protect us against our follies, and visit us in our distresses; a government which shall repress dishonesty, as now it punishes theft; which shall show how the discipline of the masses may be brought to aid the toils of peace, as the discipline of the masses has hitherto knit the sinews of battle; a government which shall have its soldiers of the ploughshare as well as its soldiers of the sword, and which shall distribute more proudly its golden crosses of industry — golden as the glow of the harvest — than it now grants its bronze crosses of honour — bronzed with the crimson of blood.”

RUSKIN. Political Economy of Art.

“All front fighters fought side by side and went through an inferno. They are all comparable to the heroes of the ancient world. It was the manhood of the nations in their prime who fought and experienced the horrors of modern war.

In another war the flower of the nations’ men and women will have to fight. Europe will be destroyed if the best in all of the nations are wiped out. A new conflict will exceed even the ghastly tragedies of the Great War.

I believe that those who rattle the sabres have not participated in war. I know that war veterans speak and think differently.

They energetically desire to prevent another conflict. I hope that the men who are standing before me can contribute to preserve the peace of the world — a peace of honour and equality for all.

Let us not talk of prestige as between the victors and the defeated. This is my one request: Forget what has divided the nations before and remember that history has advanced.”

Field Marshal GOERINGaddressing the British

and German war veterans.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER ……………………………………………………………. PAGE

Dedication

To the Reader

Preface

Field Marshall Goering’s Address

I. DER FUHRER ……………………………………………………….. 11

II. THE BELEAGUERED CITY ……………………………………. 21

III. NATIONAL SOCIALISM ……………………………………… 25

IV. THE NAZI RALLYS AT NUREMBERG ……………………. 34

V. THE FOREIGN POLICY OF GERMANY ……………………. 41

VI. ENGLAND AND GERMANY ………………………………….. 49

VII. MARCH 7th, A MOST IMPORTANT DATE …………… 54

VIII. THE REAL ENEMY OF EUROPE ……………………….. 58

IX. COMMUNISM VERSUS NATIONAL SOCIALISM …… 62

X. THE UNION OF THE GERMAN PEOPLE …………………. 68

XI. ACTS OF “AGGRESSION” BY GERMANY ……………… 79

XII. THE DANCE OF DEATH ……………………………………… 85

XIII. OUR FUTURE POLICY TOWARDS GERMANY ……. 93

XIV. THE HITLER YOUTH MOVEMENT ……………………… 100

XV. THE WINTER HELP ORGANIZATION ………………….. 104

XVI. NATIONAL SOCIALISM AND THE PROTESTANT

CHURCH ……………………………………………………………………… 109

XVII. ECONOMICS …………………………………………………….. 118

XVIII. THE FOUR YEARS PLAN …………………………………… 138

XIX. THE GERMAN COLONIES …………………………………. 141

XX. THE LABOUR FRONT ………………………………………….. 146

XXI. AGRICULTURE …………………………………………………. 155

XXII. MUNICH AND AFTER ………………………………………… 167

Chapter Ten

THE UNION OF THE GERMAN PEOPLE

OF AUSTRIA AND THE SUDETEN

GERMANS WITH THE GERMAN

PEOPLE OF THE REICH

Further, it has become self-evident to me that those frontier districts between Czechoslovakia and Germany where the Sudeten population is in an important majority should be given full right of self-determination at once. If some cession is inevitable, as I believe it to be, it is as well that it should be done promptly and without procrastination. There is real danger, even a danger of civil war, in the continuance of a state of uncertainty. Consequently there are very real reasons for a policy of immediate and drastic action. Any kind of plebiscite or referendum would, I believe, be a sheer formality in respect of these predominantly German areas. A very large majority of their inhabitants desire amalgamation with Germany. The inevitable delay involved in taking a plebiscite vote would only serve to excite popular feelings, with perhaps most dangerous results. I consider, therefore, that these frontier districts should at once be transferred from Czechoslovakia to Germany, and, further, that measures for their peaceful transfer, including the provision of safeguards for the population during the transfer period, should be arranged forthwith by agreement between the two Governments.

(Vide: Runciman Report No. 7, 1938)

The rise of the Austrian people in rebellion against Schuschnigg in a few hours, the fall of Schuschnigg from power, the telegram from Dr. Seyss-Inquart, the head of the new government, to Hitler to send troops to preserve order, the triumphant march of the soldiers of the Reich into Austria, received with acclamations of joy by the Austrian people, and the progress of Hitler through the country received with such scenes of enthusiastic welcome as are unparalleled in history, took the people of this country completely by surprise. They had been carefully educated in the belief that the “independence” of Austria, that is their separation from Germany, was the wish of the Austrian people.

[Page 69]

The facts that the Austrian Parliament in 1918-19 passed a unanimous vote in favour of union with the Reich, and that Dollfuss finding that if he held an election the vote would be in favour of the Anschluss, had abolished parliament and made himself a dictator, that Schuschnigg his successor had never dared to hold an election, that 40,000 Austrians were in exile across the frontier and thousands in prison without trial, and that Schuschnigg only held power by an armed police with the forces of the allies behind him, made no impression on the people of this country, deceived by a skillful propaganda. Many still believe that Hitler has seized Austria by force of arms against the wishes of the Austrian people. It is a new feature in the history of invasions, for the guns of the invaders to be decorated with wreaths of flowers by the invaded.

In order to get a correct understanding of the real attitude of the great mass of Austrian people, it is necessary to go back to what happened when the war was ended. The quarrel between Austria and Germany which ended in the battle of Sadowa in 1866, was really a quarrel between the two dynasties, the Hohenzollerns and the Habsburgs for supreme power over the German speaking peoples. By the defeat of Austria the Hohenzollerns became supreme, and in 1879 an alliance was formed between the two countries by Bismarck, which led to Germany supporting Austria in her quarrel with Serbia in 1914. During four years Germans of the Reich and Austrian Germans had fought side by side. The long struggle against almost the world whole and the humiliation of defeat which they both suffered welded them together into one people.

On the fall of the Habsburg dynasty, the German Austrians formed a Council of State, and on the 9th of November 1918, this Council of State sent a message to Chancellor Max von Baden of the German Reich:

“In this hour of great historical crisis the German-Austrian Council of State sends to the German people its fraternal greetings and the warmest wishes for its future. The German-Austrian Council of State expresses the hope that the German people in Austria will have a part in the election of representatives of the Constitutive National Assembly which is to decide the future political order of the German nation.”

[Page 70]

On November 12th 1918, the Provisional Assembly for German Austria passed the following law:

“German Austria is a part of the German Republic. Special laws are to regulate the participation of German Austria in the legislation and administration of the German Republic, as well as the extent of the validity of laws and institutions of the German Republic as applied to German Austria.”

On November 30th 1918, the Reich government passed the following decree:

“If the German National Assembly resolves that Austria in accordance with her wish is to be admitted to the German Reich, then the German-Austrian deputies shall join the Assembly as members with equal rights.”

On February 4th 1919, President Dr. Dinghofer addressed the German-Austrian National Assembly as follows:

“Most honourable National Assembly. The day after tomorrow on February 6th, the newly elected Constitutive National Assembly of the German Republic in Weimar meets for the first time. The conditions whereby we participate in the same as rightful members have not yet been reached and indeed not yet created. Nevertheless we cannot ignore this great and significant event. The idea of Greater Germany is not dead for us Germans in these provinces, and never, never was it dead.

Like a star glowing out of the darkness the joyous hope of the realization of our longing dream beckons us: in all the sorrow and all the care that now surround us there glows the hope of lasting reunion with our old Motherland. With the greatest enthusiasm we therefore greet our brothers yonder in the Reich.

We acclaim them with joy. The German people inseparably united in its entirety, no longer separated by boundary-posts, no longer separated by the jealousy of rulers, shall and must become our homeland again.”

[Page 71]

In his opening speech at the first session of the German National Assembly at Weimar on February 6th 1919, the people’s deputy, Friedrich Ebert spoke as follows:

“… We also cannot forego the union of the whole German nation in one Reich. Our German Austrian brothers have already declared themselves part of the Greater-German Republic at their National Assembly on November 12th. Now the German Austrian National Assembly has once again amid the greatest enthusiasm sent its greetings and expressed the hope that our National Assembly and theirs will succeed in re-establishing the link that was broken by force in 1866. German Austria must, they say, be united with the motherland for all time.”

At Weimar on 21st February 1919, the following motion was made by the deputies Lobe, Grober, Haase (Berlin), Von Payer, Dr. Count von Posadowsky-Wehner and Dr. Stresemann:

“May the National Assembly resolve: The National Assembly notes with lively satisfaction the resolutions by which the representatives of German Austria have declared their membership of the German people as a whole. It affirms to its German Austrian brothers that the Germans of the Reich and of Austria constitute an indivisible unit, transcending former state boundaries, and expresses the confident hope that through the negotiations to be entered upon by the governments this inner unity will soon find in settled political forms an expression that will be recognized by all the Powers of the World.”

This motion was supported by all parties in the Assembly.

This movement for union between the Germans of Austria and the Germans of the Reich put the three democracies of Great Britain, France and the United States in a somewhat embarrassing position. They had promised self determination to the peoples of Europe, and both Germany and Austria had elected democratic governments and these democratic governments had unanimously decided to unite. On the other hand, the allies had decided that for strategic reasons this union between Germany and Austria must be prevented, and an “Independent” Austria created. Accordingly on the 29th of December 1918, the French foreign minister M. Pichon made the following statement:

[Page 72]

“There remains the question of German-Austria. It is serious but is should not alarm us. We have means of solving it so that it will not bring our enemies the compensations and resources that they hope from it. In settling the new status of Germany and of the ruins of Austria it will be contingent on the Allied Powers to take measures which will decisively reduce the power of Germany to fit proportions and thus deprive her of the chance of indemnifying herself with the Austrian races remaining outside Czecho-Slovakia, Poland and Yugo-Slavia, for what she will irrevocably have lost in any case by sanctioning our victory. This victory must therefore in the first place be transformed into all its just consequences and into the application of the rights which it gives us over the vanquished, to remove the possibility of these again endangering the security and freedom of the world.”

Article 80 of the Treaty of Versailles was as follows:

“Germany acknowledges and will respect strictly the independence of Austria, within the frontiers which may be fixed in a treaty between that State and the Principal Allied and Associated Powers; she agrees that this independence shall be inalienable, except with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations”, which meant referring it to the Greek Kalends.

The German delegates signed this clause, but made the following protest:

“In Article 80 is demanded the permanent recognition of Austrian independence within the boundaries laid down by the Peace Treaty of the Allied and Associated Governments with Germany. Germany never has had, and never will have the intention of altering the German-Austrian frontier by force.

But should the population of Austria, whose history and culture have been closely linked with its kindred German country for thousands of years, wish to re-established with Germany the connection that was only dissolved recently by a military decision, then Germany cannot pledge herself to oppose the wish of her German brothers in Austria, since the right of self-determination of peoples must apply generally and not solely to the detriment of Germany. Any other procedure would be in contradiction to the principles laid down in the Congress speech of President Wilson on February 11th, 1918.”

In drawing up the constitution of the German Reich, another attempt was made to keep the door open for union with Austria.

The following two clauses were introduced: Article 2.

“The territory of the Reich consists of the territories of the German countries. Other territories can be admitted to the Reich by law if their population desires it in accordance with the right of self-determination.”

[Page 73]

Article 61, par. 2.

“After union with the German Reich, German Austria shall receive the right of participating in the Reich Council with the number of votes corresponding with her population. Until such time the representatives of German Austria shall have an advisory vote.”

On September 2nd 1919, the following note was sent by President Clemenceau to the President of the German Reich.

“The Allied and Associated Powers have taken note of the German constitution of August 11th 1919. They confirm that the conditions of Paragraph 2 of Article 61 constitute a formal violation of Article 80 of the Peace Treaty signed at Versailles on June 28th, 1919.

It is a double violation

1. Article 61, in stipulating the admission of Austria to the Reichsrat, likens this Republic to the German provinces which constitute the German Empire; this is incompatible with the observance of Austria’s independence.

2. In allowing and regulating the participation of Austria in the Reichsrat, Article 61 creates a political bond and a common political action between Germany and Austria, in complete contradiction to the independence of the latter.

The Allied and Associated Powers therefore, having reminded the German Government that Article 178 of the German Constitution declares that the ‘conditions of the Treaty of Versailles cannot be affected by the constitution’ summon the German Government to take the proper steps to annul this violation forthwith, by declaring Article 61, paragraph 2, void.

With the reservation as to further measures in the event of refusal, and indeed on the basis of the Treaty (namely, Article 429), the Allied and Associated Powers inform the German Government that this violation of its obligations in an essential point will oblige the Powers to extend their occupation immediately on the right bank of the Rhine, if their just demand be not complied with within 14 days of the date of this note.”

[Page 74]

The clause was withdrawn.

Since then the agitation for the Anschluss has never ceased, and has grown in intensity as Germany under Hitler once more became a free nation.

After the abortive rising and the deplorable assassination of Dollfuss, the movement in favour of the Anschluss was savagely suppressed.

Staying in Salzburg at the time, we saw young peasants from the hills being marched in as prisoners. The Castle was full of prisoners and several were shot without trial although they had not been near Vienna and could have had nothing to do with the assassination.

When Schuschnigg broke all his promises to Hitler, and announced his travesty of a plebiscite, the Austrian pot boiled over. There was no register of voters, no arrangements to protect the secrecy of the ballot, and only one voting card with “Independent Austria, Heil Schuschnigg, Ja” printed on it. Anyone wishing to vote No, had to cut out a card of the same size, write on it No and hand it openly to Schuschnigg officials who were the only people allowed at the polling stations, with the probability of arrest and imprisonment.

On the 11th of March the following telegram was sent by Dr. Seyss-Inquart to Hitler:

“The provisional Government of Austria which, after the resignation of the Schuschnigg government, consider it their duty to restore calm and order in Austria, direct to the German Government the urgent request to support them in their duty and to help them in preventing bloodshed. To this end they ask the German Government to send German troops as soon as possible.”

After the receipt of this telegram, German troops marched in and the Anschluss was accomplished without the loss of a single life.

The Sudeten Germans

At the time when I am finishing this book, the governments of Europe have solved the vexed problems of the Sudeten Germans, and the Hungarians forcibly included in CzechoSlovakia, — another inheritance from the peace treaties.

[Page 75]

Czecho-Slovakia contains Germans, Slovaks, Hungarians, Poles, Rumanians, Ruthenians and Czechs, and over all these alien people bundled together by the framers of the peace treaties into one nation, the Czechs have a small majority which has enabled them under the outward form of democracy to keep supreme power in their own hands. Lord Balfour declared when the State of Czecho-Slovakia was brought into existence, that these new European States were built up on the principle of little nations on the victorious side seizing the territories of a country that was defeated, and holding them on a cut-throat basis which cannot be defended. None of these various races love one another, but all are agreed on a hatred of Czech domination, and both the Germans and the Slovaks have petitioned the League for freedom and independence.

There can be no question that the Sudeten Germans have suffered cruelly under Czech rule. The glass industry has been allowed to fall into decay, they are denied equality of political rights, they have great difficulty in getting employment, and a large number are slowly dying of starvation. The statistics as to disease from malnutrition among the German children are appalling. Until recently thousands have been imprisoned without trial.

Their terrible condition has naturally excited the greatest indignation among their German brothers in the Reich, and Hitler’s task has been to prevent any rash act on either side of the frontier which might lead to war.

The reason why all Europe was so interested in CzechoSlovakia is because Bohemia now part of Czecho-Slovakia, surrounded by mountains, is the natural citadel of central Europe. It is for this reason that the treaty between the Czechs and the Soviet was so dangerous. If Bohemia were in possession of the Soviet army, they could accomplish that Asiatic conquest of Europe which has so nearly happened more than once in the past. The treaty has now been denounced and the door for an inroad into Europe of Asiatic hordes under the flag of the hammer and the sickle, bolted and barred.

[Page 76]

When the Sudeten German question came to a head, and the pot long simmering boiled over, Hitler had to deal with a very complex situation. The German people were difficult to restrain, the Sudeten Germans were in rebellion and the Communist party in Czecho-Slovakia hoped to use the trouble to promote a European war, while it was impossible to trust Benes who had made so many promises he had never kept in the past.

While a party in Czecho-Slovakia wished to provoke an armed intervention by France, Hitler was doing his best to avoid the necessity. He had only to send an armed force from Austria into Slovakia, and promise independence to all the minorities and home rule to the Slovaks, for Czecho-Slovakia to fall to pieces, a result which the Communists were prepared to face if only France could be persuaded to intervene, — an intervention which Hitler had to do everything he could to prevent.

The Runciman report in favour of the cession of the Sudeten German area to Germany without delay, cleared the air, and when Hitler proposed this solution to Chamberlain at their first meeting, Chamberlain was able to persuade his Cabinet, Daladier and Benes to accept this solution.

Between Chamberlain’s first and second visit to see Hitler, certain incidents had taken place in Czecho-Slovakia which were not reported by our Press, but were witnessed by a friend of mine who was on the spot at the time. My friend entered Prague on September 20th, and found the Czechs very depressed at the thought of giving up the Sudeten German territory. That evening a wireless message was sent out by the Prague station, that Churchill had overthrown Chamberlain, become Prime Minister, and flown to Paris to arrange for war with Germany. Next day Prague was seething with excitement, and bills were posted in the town comparing the, military strength of Germany with the military strength of Great Britain, France, the USSR and the USA. The Prime Minister resigned and M. Hodza became Prime Minister.

In the meantime my friend had motored on to Eger. He arrived on the Wednesday afternoon, and found that the handing over of the Sudeten German area having been agreed to, the Czech government had allowed the Germans to take over the management of the town which was decorated everywhere with the German flag, and the people rejoicing in the streets. The Czech police were arranging to leave the town in the most peaceable manner.

[Page 77]

On the Thursday morning M. Hodza became Prime Minister, and on the Thursday afternoon, a telegram was received from the new government that the Czechs were again going to take over the town. There was a hasty hiding away of flags and decorations, and in the evening the Czech troops marched into a silent town with deserted streets, everyone hiding behind closed doors.

My friend motored on the frontier, and found bridges being blown up and machine gun emplacements being erected. It was evident that Benes had made up his mind for one last gamble for war, and that the message sent out by the new government that they adhered to the handing over of the Sudeten German area, was merely intended to put off time.

All these facts were of course known to Hitler, and caused him to draw up his ultimatum for immediate entry.

His proposal that Czech troops should retire and the German troops advance into the area was the only plan to prevent bloodshed between the Czech and German population. Runciman had already stated that it was necessary to act quickly to prevent civil war, and it is difficult to understand why Chamberlain rejected a plan which was unanimously adopted by the four powers a week later.

The ultimatum drawn up by Hitler might have been written in a more conciliatory manner, but the map accompanying it agreed closely with the map already prepared, and with the territory ultimately given up, and no difficulty was found in adhering to the time table he had originally drawn up. The flight of some of the Czechs from the Sudeten German area was quite unnecessary, as was proved by the quiet occupation of the area by the German troops without any disturbance of the existing population. The fact is that the Continental peasant from long and bitter experience over many centuries, whenever he hears of the approach of an army packs up his household goods and bolts.

During the interview with Chamberlain, Hitler for the first time threatened to use force and enter the Sudeten area even though opposed by Czech troops if it was not ceded at once. It seems to me inconceivable that we would have plunged Europe into war because Hitler insisted on an immediate occupation of territory which had already been ceded to him, millions of lives being sacrificed over a dispute about a time table.

[Page 78]

Hitler had pledged himself in his speech on March 7th 1936, that all adjustments of territory between Germany and other nations should be made by agreement and has carried out his pledge, though he seemed to come near to breaking it. It is probable that at the last moment Benes would have yielded as he could only trust the Czechs in his army, the whole Sudeten German population would have risen behind his troops, and Czech-Slovakia would have fallen to pieces though no German soldier had advanced beyond the Sudeten German area.

It is significant of the condition to which the German population had been reduced, that Hitler said that on his entry he had seen for the first time people weeping for joy and that the first thing the German troops had to do was to bring in large quantities of bread for the starving people.

Extract from Czech Schoolbook

“Who loves the Czechs — Hail to him! Long life to him!”

“Who loves the Russians — Hail to him! Long life to him!”

“Who loves the Serbs — Hail to him! Long life to him!”

“Who loves the Slovenes — Hail to him! Long life to him!”

“Who loves the Hungarians — Strike him down!”

“Who loves the Germans — Strike him down!”

[Page 79]

Chapter Eleven

ACTS OF “AGGRESSION” BY GERMANY

In order to get a true perspective towards what has taken place in Central Europe during the last five years, it is necessary to grasp the fact that what we have been witnessing is a rebellion of the German peoples in Central Europe against the peace treaties.

Hitler has been the leader, and the Nazi movement the spear head, but the rebellion was not confined to Germany, but included the German population of Austria and the Sudeten German area.

The allies had made an “Independent” state of Austria in spite of the unanimous vote of the first Austrian parliament for union with the Reich, and had handed over the Sudeten Germans to the Czechs in spite of their protests, for purely strategic reasons.

Dollfuss in order to maintain Austria as an independent state had to abolish the Austrian parliament, and rule as an absolute dictator, and Schuschnigg had to continue this policy. The Nazi movement progressed at first more rapidly in Austria than in Germany.

Once we have grasped the central fact that we have been witnessing a rebellion of the German peoples, all that has happened in the last five years falls into place and becomes intelligible.

Having risen in rebellion against the articles in the peace treaties which applied to them, they have re-armed, have occupied with troops their own frontiers, and have taken over the administration of their own rivers, railways and canals.

In addition the German people of Austria have joined with the German people of the Reich under one government.

[Page 80]

All these acts have taken place within territory inhabited by and belonging to the German people, and have in no way interfered with the rights of any other nation. In addition, with the consent of the three powers and of the government of CzechoSlovakia, the Sudeten German area has been joined to the Reich.

This addition to German territory was advised by our commissioner Lord Runciman, and has been described by Sir John Simon as an act of justice.

We are told by the enemies of Germany in this country that these acts of the German people were aggressive, violent and illegal acts, and we must proceed to examine these three accusations.

An act of aggression involves interference with other nations. It is not regarded by us as an aggressive act on our part to spend vast sums on munitions, or if we chose to do so to introduce conscription. If the Union between England and Scotland was taking place to-day, it could not be described by other nations as an act of aggression on our part. As all these re-adjustments made by German peoples took place in territory which contained an almost totally German population, we must give a verdict of not guilty when they are accused of acts of aggression.

The second accusation is that the German people have acted in a violent manner. As all these changes have been accomplished in a perfectly orderly way amid the rejoicing consent of the populations concerned, and without the loss of a single life, the charge of violence falls to the ground. There are people in this country who talk of the “invasion” of Austria. An “invasion” in which the people of the “invaded” country decorate the guns of the “invader” is something new in history.

The third accusation of having acted in an illegal manner is made under two heads. They are accused of breaking international law by tearing up the Treaty of Versailles, and also of acting against the protests of the League of Nations.

Let us begin by examining the first accusation. It has long been the custom among civilized nations who have been at war, after an armistice has been declared, for the delegates of both nations to meet in conference and draw up a treaty together.

Such a treaty is regarded as binding on both parties until owing to changing circumstances one party or the other denounces the treaty and a new treaty is drawn up. It has also always been understood that no act of war takes place after the armistice has been signed.

[Page 81]

The allies when engaged in drawing up the Treaty of Versailles, departed from both these customs which have been recognised by all civilized nations. The Treaty of Versailles was drawn up by the allies without the German delegates being admitted. They were then called in and graciously allowed to suggest certain modifications which were promptly rejected, and told to sign. They signed under protest, and said that the German people would never regard the treaty as binding. The second departure from civilized practice was the continuance after the armistice had been signed of the blockade which was starving the German people. The signature of the German delegates was made the condition for raising the blockade.

A treaty between two nations is of the nature of a contract between two men, and both parties are expected to carry it out. But if one of the parties after signing the contract can convince the judge that he signed it by compulsion with a pistol held to his head, no court would uphold the contract.

In the case of the entry into the neutral zone of the German troops, there is a plausible case against Germany. Her defence is that France, by making a treaty with the Soviet directed against Germany, had already torn up the Treaty of Locarno, and was fully warned of the view that would be taken of this act in Germany. Even if the verdict goes against Germany, and she did commit an illegal act, the crime of occupying your own territory with your own troops cannot be regarded as a very serious one.

The other accusation is that Germany acted in an illegal manner in. defying the protests of the League of Nations. The victorious powers decided to set up a perpetual committee which they invited other nations to join, and which they called the League of Nations. Germany was excluded at the beginning and the USA. washed their hands of the whole affair. The main object of the League was to keep the peace treaties inviolate, but it also took on other international duties. Those joining it signed a covenant promising not to make war on each other, but to refer matters of dispute to the League, and in certain articles the League took power to use force through its members against any nation which it had named as an aggressor.

[Page 82]

The League arrogated to itself a legal status which would not be recognised in international law. It had no more authority over other nations than any other alliance of the powers. The members of the League were of course bound by the terms of their contract while they remained members but if they chose to leave the League, the League had no jurisdiction over them and protests passed by the League had no more legal status than if they had been passed by a Mothers Meeting.

International law has grown up slowly through certain customs being finally accepted by all nations, and it is possible that if a League of Nations had been formed at some time before the war when the whole world was at peace, and had in the first instance been a voluntary body with no compulsory powers, it might in time have been recognised by all nations that its decisions were binding; but a League set up by the victors after a war to enforce the maintenance of a status quo which was intolerable to the conquered nations, was doomed to failure. We must therefore return a verdict of not guilty under the second accusation of illegal action.

The German peoples have only claimed and taken such rights as are granted to all nations, and have carried out their programme among themselves and within their own territory with the exception of the union of the Sudeten German area to the Reich which was done with the consent of the other three powers. Such action is neither aggressive, violent nor illegal, and in no way injures the interests of external powers.

Another accusation made against Germany that she uses the threat of force while the League and the Democracies confine themselves to sweet reasonableness and would never use a potential force to get their own way. They blame Hitler for having re-armed Germany. Surely that is an absurd accusation when France at the time he re-armed had an army of five hundred thousand men on a peace footing, and the Soviet an army of one million three hundred thousand men.

[Page 83]

Hitler has only once threatened to use force, when he stated that after a certain date he would if necessary force his way into the territory already assigned to him.

The fact is that in the present crude and barbaric conditions of the relations between nations, every nation has to be “well heeled” before going into a conference.

The allies used potential force to compel the Germans to sign the Treaty of Versailles and to prevent the union of Austria with Germany, and the League refused all concessions to Germany, and ignored the appeals of minorities in Czecho-Slovakia, because behind the League was the army of France.

It is now generally agreed that the Versailles Treaty was most unjust to Germany, but if Germany had not defied the League and begun to re-arm, she would to-day be in the position she was in 1932. Concessions are not made by one nation to another nation because they are just, but because it is dangerous to refuse.

It is true that Chamberlain agreed to the cession of the Sudeten German area because he thought it was just and right, and there are instances in our history when we have acted even to our own detriment on the merits of a case; but I know of no instance of such an action by any other nation except ourselves.

The whole conception of the League as a super state was built on a foundation of force, and the complaint of the parties of the Left in this country is not that the League was built on a foundation of force, but that when the time for action came the whole machine broke down, the various members of the League refusing to fight. In reply to a statement that we had forty nations behind us over the Abyssinian question, Chamberlain said, “Yes, they are behind us but not by our side”.

It is only fair to say that the Opposition claim that the mere threat by the League would be sufficient if it was properly organised for military action; but there always is the danger that the other side will call your bluff. A revolver charged with blank cartridges is a dangerous weapon when going into a quarrel.

[Page 84]

We are re-arming to-day not because Great Britain or the Empire is in the slightest danger from attack, but because we want to go into any discussion with any other power as “well heeled” as they are.

When Hitler says “the army is Germany”, has not that lesson been taught him by all that has happened since the Armistice was signed? If after the signing of the Armistice the army of Germany though in retreat had still been in being, the Treaty of Versailles would have been a very different document. Would France have entered the Ruhr if there had been the German army to oppose her? An unarmed nation will get no justice from the other nations.

Hitler says “the army is Germany”. Is it not equally true that our navy is the British Empire? We have built the Empire by force, we hold it by force, and we will defend it by force, and we possess it intact to-day because our navy is far stronger the the navy of any other Power.

“Ah”, my critic will reply, “the League, the Allies, France and Great Britain only use force in a just and righteous cause. All other nations and more especially Germany and Italy use it in an unrighteous cause”, which reminds me of a story told me by my father. When he was a boy Scotland was under the tyranny of a rigid Sabbatarianism. One day he was scolded for having laughed on the Sabbath day. He retorted that he had heard the minister laugh on the Sabbath. “Ah”, was the reply, “but that was a Holy smile”.